Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to evaluate the predictive value of FAR combined with CACS for MACCEs. BACKGROUND: The fibrinogen-albumin-ratio (FAR), a novel biomarker of inflammation, is associated with the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD). Coronary calcification score (CACS) is associated with the severity of coronary stenosis and is closely related to the prognosis of CAD patients. What is the prognostic value of FAR in patients with chest pain, which has not been reported. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between CACS and FAR and their impact on prognosis in patients with suspected CAD. METHODS: We used information from 12,904 individuals who had coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) for chest pain and tracked down any significant adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). The following formula was used to calculate FAR: fibrinogen (g/L)/albumin (g/L). Patients were separated into groups with greater levels of FAR (FAR-H) and lower levels of FAR (FAR-L) in accordance with the ideal cut-off value of FAR for MACCEs prediction. In addition, patients were divided into three groups based on their CACS scores (CACS ≤ 100, 100 < CACS ≤ 400, and CACS > 400). RESULTS: 4946 patients [62(55-71) years, 64.4% male] were ultimately enrolled in the present study. During follow-up, a total of 234 cases (4.7%) of MACCEs were documented. Linear regression analysis results showed that CACS (R2 = 0.004, Standard β = 0.066, P < 0.001) was positively associated with FAR in patients with chest pain.Compared to ones with FAR-L, FAR-H had an increased risk for MACCEs (adjusted HR 1.371(1.053-1.786) P = 0.019). Multivariate Cox regression showed that age (adjusted HR 1.015 95% CI 1.001-1.028;p = 0.03), FAR (adjusted HR 1.355 95% CI 1.042-1.763;p = 0.023),FBG (adjusted HR 1.043 95% CI 1.006-1.083;p = 0.024) and CACS (adjusted HR 1.470 95% CI 1.250-1.727;p < 0.001) were the independent risk factors for MACCEs. The FAR and CACS significantly improved MACCEs risk stratification, contributing to substantial net reclassification improvement ( NRI 0.122, 95% CI 0.054-0.198, P < 0.001) and integrated discrimination improvement(IDI 0.011, 95% CI 0.006-0.017, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: FAR was an independent risk factor for MACCEs. The results showed that CACS was positively associated with FAR in patients with suspected CAD. A higher level of FAR and heavier coronary calcification burden was associated with worse outcomes among patients with suspected CAD. FAR and CACS improved the risk identification of patients with suspected CAD, leading to a significant reclassification of MACCEs.