Comment on "The relationship between atherogenic index of plasma and no‑reflow in patients with acute ST‑segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention"

Abstract

We read with great pleasure the interesting study evaluating "The relationship between atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) and no-reflow in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention" by Süleymanoğlu M et al. The most important problem in the study was that they miscalculated their patients' AIP values. As a result of this miscalculation, all patients seemed to be at high cardiac risk. When calculating AIP, the unit of both triglyceride (TG) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels should be taken in mmol. In calculating the AIP value, Süleymanoğlu et al. used the units as mg/dl and found the median values as 0.50 (patients with noreflow, high cardiac risk) and 0.39 (patients without noreflow, high cardiac risk), respectively. When we calculate the estimated AIP by converting units to mmol, it is 0.15 (patients with noreflow, intermediate cardiac risk) and 0.03 (patients with noreflow, low cardiac risk), respectively. Interestingly, their patients' cholesterol levels such as total cholesterol, TG, low-density lipoprotein, and HDL were very lower than those of healthy individuals in their country. We believe that the authors should explain this situation.

Keywords: Atherogenic index of plasma; Percutaneous coronary intervention; ST‑segment elevation myocardial infarction.