TY  - BOOK
AU  - Ben-Dor, Itsik
AU  - Case, Brian C
AU  - Cellamare, Matteo
AU  - Chaturvedi, Abhishek
AU  - Chitturi, Kalyan
AU  - Hashim, Hayder
AU  - Li, Jason
AU  - Merdler, Ilan
AU  - Ozturk, Sevket Tolga
AU  - Sawant, Vaishnavi
AU  - Waksman, Ron
TI  - Coronary microvascular dysfunction and inflammation: Insights from the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry
SN  - 1878-0938
PY  - 2024///
KW  - IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
KW  - Automated
KW  - MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
KW  - MedStar Washington Hospital Center
KW  - Advanced Cardiac Catheterization Research Fellowship
KW  - Internal Medicine Residency
KW  - MedStar Georgetown University Hospital/MedStar Washington Hospital Center
KW  - Journal Article
N1  - Available in print through MWHC library: 2002 - present
N2  - BACKGROUND: Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is associated with various inflammatory conditions that worsen endothelial dysfunction. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between CMD and inflammation using common inflammatory markers derived from complete blood count (CBC) analysis; CONCLUSION: Our findings did not show a noteworthy connection between CMD and inflammation, as suggested by various simple CBC-based biomarkers. Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc; METHODS: Information was gathered from the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry to examine the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), eosinophil-to-monocyte ratio (EMR), and monocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein ratio (MHR) in a cohort of patients with angina who showed non-obstructive coronary arteries and underwent invasive physiological assessments for CMD; RESULTS: Of the 171 patients studied, 126 were CMD-negative and 45 were CMD-positive, constituting two groups of interest. The average age of all patients was 61.7 +/- 11.1 years, and 63.7 % were female. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, or potential anti-inflammatory medications. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in NLR (2.54 +/- 3.71 vs. 2.52 +/- 2.28, p = 0.97), EMR (0.3 +/- 0.21 vs. 0.34 +/- 0.29, p = 0.31), or MHR (0.02 +/- 0.01 vs. 0.01 +/- 0.01, p = 0.54) between CMD-positive and CMD-negative patients
UR  - https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2024.05.020
ER  -