BMC Cardiovascular Disorders (Nov 2024)

The prognostic value of cartilage intermediate layer protein 1 (CILP1) in patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy

  • Li Xiang,
  • Xiang Liu,
  • Xuehua Jiao,
  • Zhenguo Qiao

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-024-04331-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Objective To measure the plasma levels of human cartilage intermediate layer protein 1 (CILP1) in patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM), and to investigate its association with the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in DCM. Methods A total of 336 diabetic patients were enrolled and assigned into two groups based on the presence or absence of DCM (DCM group and N-DCM group). The baseline clinical data including glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (ALT), glutamic oxaloacetic acid transferase (AST), albumin, serum creatinine, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), C-reactive protein (CRP), and N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were recorded. Subsequently, plasma levels of CILP1 at admission were detected by the enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method. Echocardiographic parameters were also acquired for all patients. The association of CILP1 with LVEF, LVDD and CRP was determined. In addition, the occurrence of MACE was examined during the 12-month follow-up in the DCM group. Results The concentration of CILP1 in the DCM group was higher than in the N-DCM group [1329.97 (1157.14, 1494.36) ng/L vs. 789.00 (665.75, 937.06) ng/L, P < 0.05], higher in the MACE group than in the non-MACE group [1777.23 (1532.83, 2341.26)ng/L vs. 885.00 (722.40, 1224.91) ng/L, P < 0.05). Correlation analysis revealed that CILP1 expression was associated with LVEF, CRP and LVDD (r = -0.58, 0.29 and 0.44, respectively, P < 0.05). Analysis of a nomogram demonstrated that CILP1, sex, age, BMI, LVEF and LVDD could predict the occurrence of MACE in DCM patients at 12 months (P < 0.05). The plasma levels of CILP1 were independently associated with a stronger discriminating power for DCM. Furthermore, inclusion of CILP1 as a covariate in the model caused a significant improvement in risk estimation compared with traditional risk factors for DCM [BASIC: AUC: 0.556, 95%CI: 0.501–0.610; BASIC + CILP1: AUC: 0.913, 95%CI: 0.877–0.941, P < 0.05] and MACE [BASIC: AUC: 0.710, 95%CI: 0.616–0.792; BASIC + CILP1: AUC: 0.871, 95%CI: 0.794–0.928, P < 0.05]. Conclusions The serum concentration of CILP1 was increased in DCM patients. Elevated fasting plasma CILP1 levels was a robust diagnostic marker of DCM and was independently associated with an increased risk of MACE.

Keywords