Evidence Hub

The association of atherogenic index of plasma with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mehrdad Rabiee Rad, Ghazal Ghasempour Dabaghi, B. Darouei, R. Amani-Beni

Cardiovascular Diabetology, 2024

20,833 participants · 125 citations

Abstract

Atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) represents a novel marker in the current era of cardiovascular diseases. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the association of AIP with cardiovascular prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception through 2024. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular events (MACE). The secondary outcomes included all-causes death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, revascularization, and no-reflow phenomenon. AIP was determined by taking the logarithm of the ratio of triglyceride (TG) to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). The data analysis was represented using the risk ratio (RR) along with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Sixteen studies with a total number of 20,833 patients met the eligible criteria. The pooled-analysis showed a significant increased risk of MACE in the highest AIP group compared with the lowest AIP group (RR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44–1.85; P < 0.001). A similar result was observed when AIP was regarded as a continuous variable (RR = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.30–1.83; P < 0.001). Besides, elevated AIP was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death (RR = 1.79; 95% CI, 1.09–2.78; P = 0.02), MI (RR = 2.21; 95% CI, 1.55–3.13; P < 0.001), revascularization (RR = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.34–1.97; P < 0.001), no-reflow phenomenon (RR = 3.12 95% CI, 1.09–8.96; P = 0.034), and stent thrombosis (RR = 13.46; 95%CI, 1.39-129.02; P…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 20,833 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free