000			03688nam a22005657a 4500
008			240807s20242024 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a1878-0938
024			_aS1553-8389(24)00488-3 [pii]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a38789342
245			_aCoronary microvascular dysfunction and inflammation: Insights from the Coronary Microvascular Disease Registry.
251			_aCardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 2024 May 11
252			_aCardiovasc Revasc Med. 2024 May 11
253			_aCardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions
260			_c2024
260			_fFY2024
260			_p2024 May 11
265			_saheadofprint
265			_tPublisher
266			_d2024-08-07
266			_z2024/05/24 21:55
501			_aAvailable in print through MWHC library: 2002 - present
520			_aBACKGROUND: 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.
520			_aCONCLUSION: 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.
520			_aMETHODS: 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.
520			_aRESULTS: 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.
546			_aEnglish
650			_aIN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
650			_zAutomated
651			_aMedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
651			_aMedStar Washington Hospital Center
656			_aAdvanced Cardiac Catheterization Research Fellowship
656			_aInternal Medicine Residency
656			_aMedStar Georgetown University Hospital/MedStar Washington Hospital Center
657			_aJournal Article
700			_aBen-Dor, Itsik _bMHVI
700			_aCase, Brian C _bMHVI
700			_aCellamare, Matteo _bMHVI
700			_aChaturvedi, Abhishek _bMWHC _cAdvanced Cardiac Catheterization Research Fellowship _dMBBS
700			_aChitturi, Kalyan _bMWHC _cAdvanced Cardiac Catheterization Research Fellowship _dDO
700			_aHashim, Hayder _bMHVI
700			_aLi, Jason _bMGUH _cInternal Medicine Residency _dMD
700			_aMerdler, Ilan _bMHVI
700			_aOzturk, Sevket Tolga _bMHVI
700			_aSawant, Vaishnavi _bMHVI
700			_aWaksman, Ron _bMHVI
790			_aMerdler I, Chitturi KR, Chaturvedi A, Li J, Cellamare M, Ozturk ST, Sawant V, Ben-Dor I, Waksman R, Case BC, Hashim HD
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2024.05.020 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2024.05.020
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c14420 _d14420