Back to all available

Association between the C-reactive protein–triglyceride glucose index and coronary collateral circulation in patients with chronic total occlusion: a retrospective study

cardiology
internal-medicine
statistics

Abstract

Objective.​​ To examine the association between the C-reactive protein-triglyceride glucose (CTI) index and coronary collateral circulation (CCC) in patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) and to assess its predictive performance for poor CCC compared to traditional biomarkers, by developing an accessible risk stratification tool based on routine clinical data, we seek to facilitate early identification of high-risk patients and inform targeted clinical management.

Methods. This retrospective study analyzed 545 patients, classifying CCC using the Rentrop score. The CTI index was calculated from hs-CRP, triglycerides, and fasting plasma glucose. The association between CTI (as a continuous variable) and inadequate CCC was assessed using multivariate logistic regression, with results presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Model performance was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Restricted cubic spline and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the dose-response relationship and the consistency of the association, respectively.

Results.​​ Among the 545 CTO patients, 144 (26.4%) developed inadequate CCC. The inadequate CCC group demonstrated significantly higher levels of CTI, inflammatory markers, and cardiometabolic risk indicators (all P<0.001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed the CTI index as an independent risk factor for poor CCC (OR=2.63, 95% CI [1.75-4.10], P<0.001). The ROC analysis showed the CTI index (AUC=0.679) had superior predictive ability compared to TyG, AIP, and NHR indices. Restricted cubic spline analysis indicated a significant linear dose-response relationship between CTI and poor CCC risk (P-overall<0.001). Subgroup analyses confirmed the consistent association of CTI with poor CCC across various patient populations (P for interaction >0.05).

Conclusion.​​ The CTI index demonstrated a significant and independent association with impaired coronary collateral circulation in CTO patients, exhibiting superior predictive value compared to traditional biomarkers. This readily accessible index shows promise as a practical clinical tool for early risk stratification, potentially guiding targeted management strategies to improve patient prognosis. Future multi-center prospective studies are warranted to validate its generalizability and explore causal mechanisms.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].