Remnant Cholesterol as a Predictor of Target-Vessel Failure in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis

Fei Ye

doi:10.31083/RCM43867

Information
Figures
References
Contents

Academic Editor

Stefano De Servi

Download

[1]Zhao D, Liu J, Wang M, Zhang X, Zhou M. Epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in China: current features and implications. Nature Reviews. Cardiology. 2019; 16: 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-018-0119-4.
- Google Scholar
[2]Bruno F, Marengo G, De Filippo O, Wanha W, Leonardi S, Raposeiras Roubin S, et al. Impact of Complete Revascularization on Development of Heart Failure in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease: A Subanalysis of the CORALYS Registry. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2023; 12: e028475. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.028475.
- Google Scholar
[3]Giustino G, Colombo A, Camaj A, Yasumura K, Mehran R, Stone GW, et al. Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2022; 80: 348–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.05.017.
- Google Scholar
[4]Madhavan MV, Kirtane AJ, Redfors B, Généreux P, Ben-Yehuda O, Palmerini T, et al. Stent-Related Adverse Events >1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020; 75: 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.058.
- Google Scholar
[5]Lee SH, Cho JY, Kim JS, Lee HJ, Yang JH, Park JH, et al. A comparison of procedural success rate and long-term clinical outcomes between in-stent restenosis chronic total occlusion and de novo chronic total occlusion using multicenter registry data. Clinical Research in Cardiology. 2020; 109: 628–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-019-01550-7.
- Google Scholar
[6]Elbadawi A, Dang AT, Mahana I, Elzeneini M, Alonso F, Banerjee S, et al. Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for In-Stent Restenosis Versus De Novo Lesions: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2023; 12: e029300. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.029300.
- Google Scholar
[7]Xu W, Yau YK, Pan Y, Tse ETY, Lam CLK, Wan EYF. Effectiveness and safety of using statin therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in older patients with chronic kidney disease who are hypercholesterolemic: a target trial emulation study. The Lancet. Healthy Longevity. 2025; 6: 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100683.
- Google Scholar
[8]Bhatia HS, Wandel S, Willeit P, Lesogor A, Bailey K, Ridker PM, et al. Independence of Lipoprotein(a) and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol-Mediated Cardiovascular Risk: A Participant-Level Meta-Analysis. Circulation. 2025; 151: 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069556.
- Google Scholar
[9]Quispe R, Martin SS, Michos ED, Lamba I, Blumenthal RS, Saeed A, et al. Remnant cholesterol predicts cardiovascular disease beyond LDL and ApoB: a primary prevention study. European Heart Journal. 2021; 42: 4324–4332. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab432.
- Google Scholar
[10]Wong ND, Zhao Y, Quek RGW, Blumenthal RS, Budoff MJ, Cushman M, et al. Residual atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in statin-treated adults: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Journal of Clinical Lipidology. 2017; 11: 1223–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2017.06.015.
- Google Scholar
[11]Joshi PH, Martin SS, Blumenthal RS. The remnants of residual risk. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015; 65: 2276–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.543.
- Google Scholar
[12]Landray MJ, Haynes R, Hopewell JC, Parish S, Aung T, Tomson J, et al. Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 371: 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1300955.
- Google Scholar
[13]Diaz R, Li QH, Bhatt DL, Bittner VA, Baccara-Dinet MT, Goodman SG, et al. Intensity of statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome, residual risk, and its modification by alirocumab: insights from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2021; 28: 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487320941987.
- Google Scholar
[14]Strikic D, Begic Z, Radman I, Zlopasa F, Mateljic J, Zec I, et al. Reshaping Dyslipidaemia Treatment with Bempedoic Acid-A Narrative Review. Biomedicines. 2025; 13: 1460. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13061460.
- Google Scholar
[15]Jepsen AM, Langsted A, Varbo A, Bang LE, Kamstrup PR, Nordestgaard BG. Increased Remnant Cholesterol Explains Part of Residual Risk of All-Cause Mortality in 5414 Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease. Clinical chemistry. 2016;62: 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2015.253757.
- Google Scholar
[16]Castañer O, Pintó X, Subirana I, Amor AJ, Ros E, Hernáez Á, et al. Remnant Cholesterol, Not LDL Cholesterol, Is Associated With Incident Cardiovascular Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020; 76: 2712–2724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.008.
- Google Scholar
[17]Kuntz RE, Baim DS. Defining coronary restenosis. Newer clinical and angiographic paradigms. Circulation. 1993; 88: 1310–1323. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.88.3.1310.
- Google Scholar
[18]Alfonso F, Coughlan JJ, Giacoppo D, Kastrati A, Byrne RA. Management of in-stent restenosis. EuroIntervention. 2022; 18: e103–e123. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01034.
- Google Scholar
[19]Cui C, Li P, Qi Y, Song J, Han T, Shang X, et al. Intraindividual Discordance Between Remnant Cholesterol and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Associated With Incident Stroke: Results From 2 National Cohorts. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2024; 13: e035764. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.035764.
- Google Scholar
[20]ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, et al. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023; 46: S19–S40. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-S002.
- Google Scholar
[21]Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL, Jr, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003; 289: 2560–2572. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.19.2560.
- Google Scholar
[22]Catapano AL, Graham I, De Backer G, Wiklund O, Chapman MJ, Drexel H, et al. 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias: The Task Force for the Management of Dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Assocciation for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Atherosclerosis. 2016; 253: 281–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2016.08.018.
- Google Scholar
[23]Vrints C, Andreotti F, Koskinas KC, Rossello X, Adamo M, Ainslie J, et al. 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal. 2024; 45: 3415–3537. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae177.
- Google Scholar
[24]Li X, Ge Z, Kan J, Anjum M, Xie P, Chen X, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes (IVUS-ACS): a two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet. 2024; 403: 1855–1865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00282-4.
- Google Scholar
[25]Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. European Heart Journal. 2012; 33: 2551–2567.
- Google Scholar
[26]Feng X, Liu Y, Yang J, Zhou Z, Yang S, Zhou Y, et al. The prognostic role of remnant cholesterol in Asian menopausal women received percutaneous coronary intervention with acute coronary syndrome. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2024; 23: 276. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02258-y.
- Google Scholar
[27]Mauri L, Hsieh WH, Massaro JM, Ho KKL, D’Agostino R, Cutlip DE. Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 356: 1020–1029. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067731.
- Google Scholar
[28]Nordestgaard BG, Langsted A, Freiberg JJ. Nonfasting hyperlipidemia and cardiovascular disease. Current Drug Targets. 2009; 10: 328–335. https://doi.org/10.2174/138945009787846434.
- Google Scholar
[29]Khetarpal SA, Rader DJ. Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and coronary artery disease risk: new insights from human genetics. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2015; 35: e3–e9. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.114.305172.
- Google Scholar
[30]Ginsberg HN, Packard CJ, Chapman MJ, Borén J, Aguilar-Salinas CA, Averna M, et al. Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and their remnants: metabolic insights, role in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and emerging therapeutic strategies-a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society. European Heart Journal. 2021; 42: 4791–4806. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab551.
- Google Scholar
[31]Borén J, Williams KJ. The central role of arterial retention of cholesterol-rich apolipoprotein-B-containing lipoproteins in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis: a triumph of simplicity. Current Opinion in Lipidology. 2016; 27: 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOL.0000000000000330.
- Google Scholar
[32]Nordestgaard BG. Triglyceride-Rich Lipoproteins and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: New Insights from Epidemiology, Genetics, and Biology. Circulation Research. 2016; 118: 547–563. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306249.
- Google Scholar
[33]Bornfeldt KE. The Remnant Lipoprotein Hypothesis of Diabetes-Associated Cardiovascular Disease. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2022; 42: 819–830. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.122.317163.
- Google Scholar
[34]Varbo A, Benn M, Tybjærg-Hansen A, Nordestgaard BG. Elevated remnant cholesterol causes both low-grade inflammation and ischemic heart disease, whereas elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol causes ischemic heart disease without inflammation. Circulation. 2013; 128: 1298–1309. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003008.
- Google Scholar
[35]Nakajima K, Nakano T, Tanaka A. The oxidative modification hypothesis of atherosclerosis: the comparison of atherogenic effects on oxidized LDL and remnant lipoproteins in plasma. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2006; 367: 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2005.12.013.
- Google Scholar
[36]Yu M, Dai C, Shi J, Fu J. Immune modulation strategies to reduce in-stent restenosis. Biomaterials Science. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1039/d5bm00687b. (online ahead of print)
- Google Scholar
[37]Song L, Mintz GS, Yin D, Yamamoto MH, Chin CY, Matsumura M, et al. Characteristics of early versus late in-stent restenosis in second-generation drug-eluting stents: an optical coherence tomography study. EuroIntervention. 2017; 13: 294–302. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00787.
- Google Scholar
[38]Joshi PH, Khokhar AA, Massaro JM, Lirette ST, Griswold ME, Martin SS, et al. Remnant Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Incident Coronary Heart Disease: The Jackson Heart and Framingham Offspring Cohort Studies. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2016; 5: e002765. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.115.002765.
- Google Scholar
[39]Zhou Y, Madsen JM, Özbek BT, Køber L, Bang LE, Lønborg JT, et al. The role of remnant cholesterol in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2024; 31: 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwae102.
- Google Scholar
[40]Liao J, Qiu M, Su X, Qi Z, Xu Y, Liu H, et al. The residual risk of inflammation and remnant cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients on statin treatment undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2024; 23: 172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02156-3.
- Google Scholar
[41]Zhang M, Chen J, Xia W, Yu Z, Zhang C, Wang W, et al. Elevated remnant cholesterol predicts poor outcome in patients with premature acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective, single-center study. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-025-03147-6. (online ahead of print)
- Google Scholar
[42]Palmerini T, Della Riva D, Biondi-Zoccai G, Leon MB, Serruys PW, Smits PC, et al. Mortality Following Nonemergent, Uncomplicated Target Lesion Revascularization After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis of 21 Randomized Trials and 32,524 Patients. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018; 11: 892–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.277.
- Google Scholar
[43]Iqbal J, Serruys PW, Silber S, Kelbaek H, Richardt G, Morel MA, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015; 8: e002230. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002230.
- Google Scholar
[44]Chait A, Ginsberg HN, Vaisar T, Heinecke JW, Goldberg IJ, Bornfeldt KE. Remnants of the Triglyceride-Rich Lipoproteins, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease. Diabetes. 2020; 69: 508–516. https://doi.org/10.2337/dbi19-0007.
- Google Scholar
[45]Yabushita H, Kawamoto H, Fujino Y, Tahara S, Horikoshi T, Tada M, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Balloon for In-Stent Restenosis Based on the Number of Metallic Layers. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018; 11: e005935. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005935.
- Google Scholar
[46]Dangas GD, Claessen BE, Caixeta A, Sanidas EA, Mintz GS, Mehran R. In-stent restenosis in the drug-eluting stent era. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2010; 56: 1897–1907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.07.028.
- Google Scholar
[47]Yang CD, Shen Y, Lu L, Yang ZK, Hu J, Zhang RY, et al. Visit-to-visit HbA1⁢c variability is associated with in-stent restenosis in patients with type 2 diabetes after percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovascular Diabetology. 2020; 19: 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-020-01111-7.
- Google Scholar
[48]Yang R, Zhang J, Yu X, Yang G, Cai J. Remnant cholesterol and intensive blood pressure control in older patients with hypertension: a post hoc analysis of the STEP randomized trial. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2024; 31: 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwae001.
- Google Scholar
[49]Shao Y, Li Z, Sun M, Wu Q, Shi H, Ye L. Changes in remnant cholesterol and the incidence of diabetes: Results from two large prospective cohort studies. Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism. 2025; 27: 3645–3652. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.16383.
- Google Scholar
[50]Wadström BN, Wulff AB, Pedersen KM, Jensen GB, Nordestgaard BG. Elevated remnant cholesterol increases the risk of peripheral artery disease, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke: a cohort-based study. European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 3258–3269. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab705.
- Google Scholar
[51]Yang XH, Zhang BL, Cheng Y, Fu SK, Jin HM. Association of remnant cholesterol with risk of cardiovascular disease events, stroke, and mortality: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Atherosclerosis. 2023; 371: 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2023.03.012.
- Google Scholar
[52]Lin A, Nerlekar N, Rajagopalan A, Yuvaraj J, Modi R, Mirzaee S, et al. Remnant cholesterol and coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden assessed by computed tomography coronary angiography. Atherosclerosis. 2019; 284: 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2019.02.019.
- Google Scholar
[53]Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, Koskinas KC, Casula M, Badimon L, et al. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 111–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455.
- Google Scholar
[54]Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, Barbato E, Berry C, Chieffo A, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal. 2023; 44: 3720–3826. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad191.
- Google Scholar
[55]Fujioka S, Shishikura D, Kusumoto H, Yamauchi Y, Sakane K, Fujisaka T, et al. Clinical impact of ≥50% reduction of low density lipoprotein cholesterol following lipid lowering therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Journal of Clinical Lipidology. 2025; 19: 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2024.10.010.
- Google Scholar
[56]Yang J, Zhang R, Han B, Li H, Wang J, Xiao Y, et al. Atherogenic lipid profile in patients with statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome: a real-world analysis from Chinese cardiovascular association database. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2024; 23: 271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02244-4.
- Google Scholar
[57]Johannesen CDL, Mortensen MB, Nordestgaard BG, Langsted A. Discordance analyses comparing LDL cholesterol, Non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B for cardiovascular risk estimation. Atherosclerosis. 2025;403: 119139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2025.119139.
- Google Scholar
[58]Lawler PR, Akinkuolie AO, Chu AY, Shah SH, Kraus WE, Craig D, et al. Atherogenic Lipoprotein Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease and Residual Risk Among Individuals with Low Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2017; 6: e005549. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.005549.
- Google Scholar
[59]Heo JH, Jung HN, Roh E, Han KD, Kang JG, Lee SJ, et al. Association of remnant cholesterol with risk of dementia: a nationwide population-based cohort study in South Korea. The Lancet. Healthy Longevity. 2024; 5: e524–e533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(24)00112-0.
- Google Scholar
[60]Miller M, Stone NJ, Ballantyne C, Bittner V, Criqui MH, Ginsberg HN, et al. Triglycerides and cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011; 123: 2292–2333. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182160726.
- Google Scholar
[61]Laufs U, Parhofer KG, Ginsberg HN, Hegele RA. Clinical review on triglycerides. European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 99–109c. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz785.
- Google Scholar
[62]Cao YX, Zhang HW, Jin JL, Liu HH, Zhang Y, Gao Y, et al. The longitudinal association of remnant cholesterol with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and pre-diabetes. Cardiovascular Diabetology. 2020; 19: 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-020-01076-7.
- Google Scholar
[63]Li M, Hou J, Gu X, Weng R, Zhong Z, Liu S. Incidence and risk factors of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients from southern China. European Journal of Medical Research. 2022; 27: 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00640-z.
- Google Scholar

Information
Download
Contents

Open Access 26 Nov 2025Original Research

Remnant Cholesterol as a Predictor of Target-Vessel Failure in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis

Xiao-han Kong ^1,†, Zi-han Lv ^1,†, Yi-fei Wang ², Yin-dong Sun ², Tian Xu ², Wei You ², Pei-na Meng ², Xiang-qi Wu ², Zhi-ming Wu ², Hai-bo Jia ^1,*, Fei Ye ²

Affiliations

Article Info

¹ Department of Geriatrics, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, 210006 Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

² Department of Cardiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, 210006 Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

^*Correspondence: jhb7185@foxmail.com (Hai-bo Jia)
^†These authors contributed equally.

Abstract

Background:

The clinical value of remnant cholesterol (RC) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the association between increased RC levels and clinical prognosis in patients with ISR.

Methods:

This retrospective study enrolled 836 patients diagnosed with ISR. The study population was divided into four quartiles (Q1–Q4) according to median RC levels. Using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan–Meier (KM) curve, the association between RC levels and the study endpoint, defined as target-vessel failure (TVF) within 3 years after PCI, was investigated. A discordance analysis was also performed with several definitions.

Results:

The KM curve showed an increased risk of TVF with elevated RC levels (p < 0.001). After adjustment, the RC level was identified as an independent predictor of TVF, regardless of whether the metric was considered as a continuous or categorical variable (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16–1.62; p < 0.001; HR = 3.43, 95% CI: 1.85–6.36; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that the RC-related TVF risk was more pronounced in patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <1.8 mmol/L (2.75 for each one standard deviation (SD) increase, 95% CI: 1.66–4.55; p for interaction < 0.001). In the discordance analysis, individuals with discordantly high RC levels rather than high LDL-C levels had an increased risk of TVF (HR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.33–3.07; p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

An increased RC level was associated with an elevated risk of TVF in patients with ISR who underwent PCI. Further, the RC-related risk was more pronounced in patients with LDL-C levels <1.8 mmol/L.

Keywords

remnant cholesterol
percutaneous coronary intervention
in-stent restenosis

1. Introduction

Arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the primary cause of cardiac mortality worldwide [1]. Early revascularization and pharmacotherapy have improved clinical prognosis among patients with coronary artery disease [2]. As a stent failure event, in-stent restenosis (ISR) still occurs at an annual incidence rate of 1–2% even with the utilization of the new generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) [3, 4]. Compared with de novo lesions, patients with ISR have an increased cardiovascular risk, such as a higher incidence of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) myocardial infarction (MI) and repetitive target vessel revascularization (TVR) [5, 6]. Thus, risk classification and management in this population are important.

As one of the cornerstone treatments for ASCVD, Drugs that aim to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) have demonstrated considerable effects in stabilizing plaques and promoting plaque regression [7]. However, there are still several patients who experience residual risks for cardiac events even with adequate LDL-C control [8, 9]. Owing to this, researchers have recently shifted to non-LDL-C control because of the persistent residual cardiac risk, even in individuals who have undergone various lipid-lowering therapies [10, 11, 12, 13, 14].

Remnant cholesterol (RC), the cholesterol content within triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, has been established as a risk factor for ASCVD in primary or secondary prevention [15, 16]. In patients with ISR, the clinical value of RC levels on cardiovascular outcomes has not been clarified. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the association between increased RC levels and cardiac events among patients with ISR who underwent re-PCI and to evaluate its independent influence among different LDL-C levels.

2. Methods

2.1 Study Population

This retrospective study included patients diagnosed with DES-ISR at Nanjing First Hospital from January 2016 to February 2021. ISR was defined as a reduction of $\geq$ 50% in the vessel diameter in the previously stented segment, as assessed by coronary angiography [17, 18]. The exclusion criteria were as listed: (1) non-DES-ISR lesions, (2) refusal of re-PCI treatment or transfer for coronary artery bypass surgery, (3) recurrent ISR, and (4) absence of baseline or follow-up information (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Study flowchart. Abbreviations: DCB, drug-coated balloon; DES, drug-eluting stent; ISR, in-stent restenosis; RC, remnant cholesterol; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

2.2 Data Collection

Demographic and clinical characteristics were retrieved from the electronic medical system at Nanjing First Hospital. Fasting venous blood samples were procured at fixed time intervals and then analyzed at the central laboratory. The level of RC was calculated as follows: RC level (mmol/L) = total cholesterol (TC) level (mmol/L) minus high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level (mmol/L) minus LDL-C level (mmol/L) [19]. Body mass index (BMI) was defined as weight (kg)/height (m²). Patients with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, receiving hypoglycemic treatment, or individuals presenting with typical symptoms of diabetes, such as fasting blood glucose $>$ 7 mmol/L or hemoglobin A1C $\geq$ 6.5%, were categorized as having diabetes [20]. Hypertension was defined as an average blood pressure $\geq$ 140/90 mmHg based on three repetitive measurements or a self-reported prior diagnosis [21].

2.3 Discordance Definition

To further investigate the RC-associated risk beyond LDL-C level, this study conducted discordance analyses. First, discordance was defined as a difference greater than 10 percentile units (RC percentile minus LDL-C percentile). The study population was then divided into: (1) RC percentile $<$ LDL-C percentile by $>$ 10 percentile units (discordantly low RC/high LDL-C); (2) concordant RC/LDL-C within $\pm{}$ 10 percentile units; and (3) RC percentile $>$ LDL-C percentile by $>$ 10 percentile units (discordantly high RC/low LDL-C). Second, we used the absolute value of the clinical cutoff points to define the discordance relationship between RC and LDL-C. According to previous guidelines and recommendations, this study focused on different LDL-C cutoff points (2.6 mmol/L and 1.8 mmol/L), and the RC cutoff point was defined as 0.8 mmol/L [22, 23].

2.4 Study Outcomes

The primary outcome of this research was target-vessel failure (TVF) during the follow-up period after PCI, which was defined as a composite of MI, TVR, and all-cause mortality [24]. The secondary outcome included each component of the primary outcome. MI was identified based on the third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction [25]. TVR was characterized as revascularization that was either angina/ischemia-induced or clinically motivated, including PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting [26, 27]. Clinical follow-up was conducted at 3–6 months intervals throughout the 3-year follow-up period. This work was carried out by independent clinical research coordinators who remained blinded to the study objective and research data.

2.5 Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables that follow a normal distribution are presented in the form of means $\pm{}$ standard deviations. For non-normally distributed variables, the median and interquartile range (IQR) are employed for description. Categorical variables are expressed as percentages (%). The t-, Kruskal–Wallis, and chi-squared tests were used for data analysis. The study population were divided into four quartiles (Q1–Q4) based on RC levels [(Q1), $<$ 0.40; (Q2), 0.40–0.53; (Q3), 0.54–0.73; (Q4), $>$ 0.73)]. To calculate the association between RC level and study endpoint, we constructed a Cox proportional hazard model. Baseline variables deemed clinically relevant or demonstrating a univariate association (p value $<$ 0.05) with the endpoint were included in the multivariate model. Finally, the multivariate analysis was adjusted for sex, age, diabetes, hypertension, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro BNP), lipoprotein A, red blood cell, triglycerides, and serum creatinine. These results are reported as hazard ratio (HR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Subsequently, the stability of the association between RC level and follow-up TVF was examined by subgroup analysis. RC values were Z-score-standardized before regression analysis because of a non-normal distribution. When counted as a continuous variable, the impact of RC on the primary endpoint was evaluated using the per-standard deviation (SD) increase format. A Kaplan–Meier (KM) curve was used to show the occurrence of TVF among different quartiles using the log-rank test. Further, this study performed discordance analyses between RC and LDL-C using several approaches. Lastly, we used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to estimate the diagnostic value of RC level, LDL-C level, and RC/LDL-C discordance. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the different models was compared to evaluate the incremental effect of RC on risk assessment. The values of integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) and net reclassification improvement (NRI) were computed to estimate the incremental predictive value. All statistical analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.2.1, R Core Team, Vienna, Austria). Statistical significance was defined as a two-sided p-value $<$ 0.05.

3. Results

3.1 Baseline Characteristics

This study enrolled 836 individuals diagnosed with ISR. The average age was 66.22 $\pm{}$ 10.51, and 662 (79.2%) were male. Individuals with elevated RC levels had a higher BMI, a greater incidence of diabetes and MI, and were mostly female. Additionally, patients in higher RC quartiles had greater levels of TC, LDL-C, triglycerides, and fasting blood glucose. Individuals across different quartiles had comparable lesion and procedural features, including target lesion location, average stent diameter, and total stent length (p all $>$ 0.05). Almost all patients underwent statin therapy after PCI (98.2%); in some cases, it was combined with ezetimibe (38.2%) or a PCSK9 inhibitor (4.6%) (Table 1).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics in patients with different quantiles of RC.

Variables			Total (n = 836)	Q1 (n = 209)	Q2 (n = 209)	Q3 (n = 209)	Q4 (n = 209)	p
Age			66.22 $\pm$ 10.51	65.98 $\pm$ 10.79	66.61 $\pm$ 10.69	67.16 $\pm$ 10.56	65.14 $\pm$ 9.96	0.236
BMI			25.09 $\pm$ 3.30	24.79 $\pm$ 3.19	24.71 $\pm$ 3.45	25.18 $\pm$ 2.94	25.70 $\pm$ 3.50	0.007
Male, n (%)			662 (79.2)	185 (88.5)	164 (78.5)	161 (77.0)	152 (72.7)	$<$ 0.001
Disease history
	Hypertension, n (%)		623 (74.5)	156 (74.6)	154 (73.7)	155 (74.2)	158 (75.6)	0.974
	Diabetes, n (%)		318 (38.0)	69 (33.0)	80 (38.3)	63 (30.1)	106 (50.7)	0.001
	Smoking, n (%)		421 (50.4)	105 (50.2)	102 (48.8)	106 (50.7)	108 (51.7)	0.996
Diagnosis
	Stable angina		138 (16.5)	33 (15.8)	38 (18.2)	35 (16.8)	32 (15.3)	0.866
	Unstable angina		532 (63.6)	150 (71.8)	129 (61.7)	138 (66.0)	115 (55.0)	0.004
	Myocardial infarction		166 (19.9)	26 (12.4)	42 (20.1)	36 (17.2)	62 (29.7)	$<$ 0.001
Lesion and procedure characteristics
	Target lesion location, n (%)							0.054
		LAD	497 (59.5)	116 (55.5)	144 (68.9)	120 (57.4)	117 (56.0)
		LCX	88 (10.5)	27 (12.9)	19 (9.1)	19 (9.1)	23 (11.0)
		RCA	251 (30.0)	66 (31.6)	46 (22.0)	70 (33.5)	69 (33.0)
	Average stent diameters, mm		2.93 $\pm$ 0.61	2.89 $\pm$ 0.69	2.96 $\pm$ 0.51	2.90 $\pm$ 0.69	2.98 $\pm$ 0.55	0.325
	Total length of stents, mm		31.00 (18.00, 54.00)	29.00 (18.00, 47.00)	30.00 (18.00, 52.00)	30.00 (18.00, 52.00)	36.00 (18.00, 56.00)	0.067
Laboratory tests
	RC, mmol/L		0.54 (0.40, 0.73)	0.31 (0.25, 0.35)	0.47 (0.44, 0.50)	0.62 (0.58, 0.67)	0.94 (0.81, 1.16)	$<$ 0.001
	TC, mmol/L		3.36 (2.85, 4.08)	2.84 (2.56, 3.37)	3.13 (2.76, 3.56)	3.49 (3.04, 4.10)	4.30 (3.66, 5.15)	$<$ 0.001
	LDL-C, mmol/L		1.78 (1.40, 2.39)	1.59 (1.26, 2.01)	1.69 (1.32, 2.06)	1.83 (1.44, 2.42)	2.32 (1.76, 3.04)	$<$ 0.001
	HDL-C, mmol/L		0.94 (0.81, 1.10)	0.96 (0.84, 1.16)	0.95 (0.83, 1.12)	0.96 (0.81, 1.10)	0.91 (0.76, 1.03)	0.007
	Triglycerides, mmol/L		1.34 (0.96, 1.85)	0.92 (0.74, 1.16)	1.20 (0.93, 1.48)	1.40 (1.10, 1.69)	2.27 (1.77, 3.09)	$<$ 0.001
	WBC, 10⁹/L		6.56 (5.44, 7.83)	6.30 (5.37, 7.35)	6.69 (5.62, 8.14)	6.52 (5.37, 7.79)	6.68 (5.47, 8.07)	0.083
	RBC, 10¹²/L		4.40 (4.04, 4.77)	4.45 (4.11, 4.76)	4.37 (4.06, 4.72)	4.45 (4.04, 4.80)	4.38 (3.97, 4.80)	0.595
	FBG, mmol/L		5.61 (4.94, 7.14)	5.39 (4.80, 6.81)	5.43 (4.89, 6.94)	5.43 (4.89, 6.59)	6.29 (5.29, 8.84)	$<$ 0.001
	NT-pro BNP		311.40 (100.00, 969.00)	246.14 (100.00, 536.03)	351.60 (129.94, 877.47)	429.85 (145.98, 1971.01)	279.77 (100.00, 969.00)	0.001
	Scr		75.45 (63.38, 92.00)	75.00 (64.00, 87.00)	72.00 (62.00, 87.00)	79.00 (65.10, 96.00)	77.00 (64.00, 96.00)	0.008
Meditation
	Statin, n (%)		821 (98.2)	205 (98.1)	208 (99.5)	207 (99.0)	201 (96.2)	0.081
	Ezetimibe, n (%)		319 (38.2)	66 (31.6)	88 (42.1)	84 (40.2)	81 (38.8)	0.132
	PCSK9-inhibitor, n (%)		38 (4.6)	12 (5.7)	8 (3.8)	6 (2.9)	12 (5.7)	0.395

BMI, body mass index; FBG, fasting Blood Glucose; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LAD, left anterior descending; LCX, left circumflex; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; PCSK9, proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin/type 9; RBC, red blood cell; RC, remnant cholesterol; RCA, right coronary artery; Scr, Serum creatinine; TC, Total cholesterol; WBC, white blood cell; NT-pro BNP, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide.

3.2 Associations Between RC Level and TVF

Over the 3 years of follow-up, 147 (17.6%) patients experienced TVF. The KM curve showed significant differences among the four quartiles (Q1–Q4), with individuals in the highest quartile having an elevated incidence of TVF compared with others (10.5% vs. 16.3% vs. 17.7% vs. 25.8%; p $<$ 0.001) (Fig. 2A). For each component of adverse events, the incidence of MI and TVR rise significantly in the higher RC quartiles (p = 0.002; p = 0.038) (Fig. 2B,C). However, patients in the highest RC quartile did not show an increase in the rate of all-cause mortality compared to those in the other quartiles (p = 0.377) (Fig. 2D).

Fig. 2.

Incidence of clinical outcomes in patients with ISR with different quantiles of RC (A) TVF (B) MI (C) TVR (D) All-cause death. Abbreviations: ISR, in-stent restenosis; MI, myocardial infarction; TVR, target vessel revascularization; TVF, target-vessel failure.

A Cox regression model was used to explore the relation between RC level and TVF (Table 2). In the univariate analysis, RC level was significantly associated with the risk of TVF, whether considered as a continuous or categorical variable. After adjusting for confounding factors, multivariable Cox analysis revealed that RC level was associated with TVF risk (1.37 for each 1 SD increase, 95% CI: 1.16–1.62; p $<$ 0.001). When considered a categorical variable, the Q4 quartile showed a 3.43-fold (95% CI: 1.85–6.36) higher risk of TVF than the Q1 quartile.

Table 2. Cox regression model for the association between the RC and TVF.

Variables		Univariate Cox regression model		Multivariable Cox regression model
Variables		p	HR (95% CI)	p	HR (95% CI)
Continuous
	RC level (mmol/L), per 1 SD increase	$<$ 0.001	1.19 (1.09 $\sim$ 1.29)	$<$ 0.001	1.37 (1.16 $\sim$ 1.62)
Categorical
	Q1 quartile	(Reference)	1.00	(Reference)	1.00
	Q2 quartile	0.096	1.58 (0.92 $\sim$ 2.70)	0.047	1.99 (1.01 $\sim$ 3.94)
	Q3 quartile	0.042	1.73 (1.02 $\sim$ 2.93)	0.144	1.65 (0.84 $\sim$ 3.25)
	Q4 quartile	$<$ 0.001	2.74 (1.67 $\sim$ 4.49)	$<$ 0.001	3.43 (1.85 $\sim$ 6.36)

Adjusted for sex, age, diabetes, hypertension, NT-pro BNP, Lp(a), RBC, triglycerides, and Scr. RBC, red blood cell; RC, remnant cholesterol; Scr, Serum creatinine; TVF, target-vessel failure; Lp(a), Lipoprotein (a); HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

3.3 Subgroup Analysis

To further clarify the influence of RC on post-PCI TVF, we conducted a subgroup analysis (Fig. 3). The results showed no statistically significant interactions between age, diagnosis, hypertension, and diabetes (all p for interaction $>$ 0.05). Compared with females, males with elevated RC levels demonstrated a marginally increased risk of TVF (1.29 for each 1 SD increase, 95% CI: 1.15–1.45; p $<$ 0.001) (p for interaction = 0.044). Further, a significant difference in RC-related risk was observed in the subgroup of LDL-C levels (1.8 mmol/L). For patients with lower LDL-C level ( $<$ 1.8 mmol/L), the HR (95% CI) of TVF was 2.75 (1.66–4.55), compared with no significant residual risk in patients with LDL-C $\geq$ 1.8 mmol/L (1.21 for each 1 SD increase, 95% CI: 0.86–1.71; p = 0.283) (p for interaction = 0.013) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Subgroup analysis. Abbreviations: LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

3.4 Discordance Analyses of RC and LDL-C Levels

Fig. 4 shows the distribution of RC and LDL-C levels. The median remnant-C level was 0.54 mmol/L (IQR, 0.40–0.73 mmol/L), and 160 (19.1%) were identified as having a high RC level ( $>$ 0.8 mmol/L). Further, for LDL-C level, almost half of the individuals (49.0%) had a LDL-C level $\geq$ 1.8 mmol/L, and 147 (17.6%) had a level $\geq$ 2.6 mmol/L.

Fig. 4.

Distribution of RC and LDL-C levels in patients with ISR. Abbreviations: ISR, in-stent restenosis; RC, remnant cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

In the discordance analysis, when identified by percentiles, approximately thirty percent of individuals were categorized in the discordantly high RC/low LDL-C group, and 302 patients were categorized in the discordantly low RC/high LDL-C group. KM curves showed a significant difference in the incidence of 3-year TVF among individuals with concordant/discordant RC levels (p = 0.025), and the individuals with discordantly low RC/high LDL-C had the lowest incidence of TVF (Fig. 5). To assess the reliability of these findings, discordance analysis was repeated using the definition based on the clinical cutoff value. The study population was divided into four groups: Concordant high RC/LDL-C group (RC $\geq$ 0.8 mmol/L, LDL-C $\geq$ 2.6/1.8 mmol/L); Discordantly high RC/low LDL-C group (RC $\geq$ 0.8 mmol/L, LDL-C $<$ 2.6/1.8 mmol/L); Discordantly low RC/high LDL-C group (RC $<$ 0.8 mmol/L, LDL-C $\geq$ 2.6/1.8 mmol/L); Concordant low RC/LDL-C group (RC $<$ 0.8 mmol/L, LDL-C $<$ 2.6/1.8 mmol/L).

Fig. 5.

Discordance analyses of RC/LDL-C levels for the incidence of TVF. (A) Discordance is defined by percentiles. (B) Discordance is defined by clinical cutoff value (RC: 0.8 mmol/L; LDL-C: 1.8 mmol/L). (C) Discordance is defined by clinical cutoff value (RC: 0.8 mmol/L; LDL-C: 2.6 mmol/L). Abbreviations: RC, remnant cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The KM curves showed that individuals with discordantly high RC/low LDL-C levels had the highest incidence of TVF events over the 3-year follow-up (p = 0.004; p = 0.009). Compared with the concordantly low RC individuals, the HR (95% CI) for those who had discordantly high RC levels was 2.65 (1.52–4.64) for TVF risk (p $<$ 0.001). However, there was no significant increased risk in patients with discordantly high LDL-C compared with the concordant low RC/LDL-C group [HR= 1.30 (0.89–1.90), p = 0.173]. When different cutoff points were set, similar results were obtained [Concordant low RC/LDL-C group vs. discordantly high RC/low LDL-C group: HR= 2.02 (1.33–3.07), p $<$ 0.001; Concordant low RC/LDL-C group vs. discordantly low RC/high LDL-C group: HR= 1.20 (0.70–2.08), p = 0.508].

3.5 Prediction Values of RC

To further assess the predictive value of RC, ROC analysis was conducted based on the Cox regression model (Fig. 6). For reference, when LDL-C level was applied to the cohort of patients diagnosed with ISR, the AUC value (95% CI) was 0.51 (0.46–0.56). Further, RC level significantly outperformed LDL-C level in predicting the risk of TVF [0.61 (0.55–0.66) vs. 0.51 (0.46–0.56), p = 0.014]. In this ROC analysis, the discordance of RC/LDL-C, calculated as the percentile distance between RC and LDL-C, was considered as a continuous variable. When RC, LDL-C, and the discordance of RC/LDL-C were incorporated into the model, the predictive ability of the model for TVF was further enhanced [0.61 (0.56–0.67) vs. 0.51 (0.55–0.66), p = 0.007; IDI: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.05–0.18; NRI: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.05–0.16].

Fig. 6.

ROC curve. Abbreviations: RC, remnant cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.

4. Discussion

This retrospective study explored the association between RC levels and TVF among patients diagnosed with ISR who underwent re-PCI. The main findings were as follows: (1) RC levels were associated with TVF risk, (2) the risk of TVF related to RC was more pronounced in patients with LDL-C levels $<$ 1.8 mmol/L, (3) discordantly high RC was associated with an increased risk of TVF, and (4) RC level combined with RC/LDL-C discordance improved the prediction of TVF risk in patients with ISR.

Comprising the triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRL), RC is composed of the cholesterol content in intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol under fasting conditions and the cholesterol content in chylomicrons under non-fasting conditions [28, 29]. Similar to LDL-C, these particles can enter the arterial endothelial layers and participate in the initiation and advancement of atherosclerosis [30]. These remaining particles contain around 40 times more cholesterol per particle compared to LDL-C, which might imply a greater atherogenic potential [31, 32, 33]. In contrast to LDL-C, these remnants do not necessitate oxidation before uptake by macrophages, which could cause foam cell formation and accelerate inflammation [34, 35]. Caused by an amplified reendothelialization response to the intimal impairment after stent implantation, inflammation is a key driver of ISR [36]. Future research is needed to clarify the mechanism by which the TRL activates the excessive hyperplasia response in the local lesion within the stent segment, thereby creating a microenvironment conducive to restenosis. Furthermore, the continuous integration of TRL into the arterial wall following DES implantation not only facilitates the transition from in-stent neointima to neo-atherosclerosis but also injures the stability of plaques, thereby lowering the treatment effect of re-PCI and influencing long-term prognosis [37]. Considering these mechanisms that make triglyceride-rich lipoproteins a potential risk factor, previous research has focused on the association between RC level and cardiovascular clinical outcomes. Cohort studies have shown that remnant lipoprotein levels could be a predictive factor for the risk of ASCVD [38]. For individuals with acute coronary syndrome, an elevated RC level was significantly associated with increased risks of ischemic events, cardiac, and all-cause mortality [39, 40, 41]. In a pooled analysis, Palmerini et al. [42] revealed that 25% of patients with ISR experienced MI. Furthermore, patients with ISR had an increased risk of recurrent ISR and revascularization [43, 44]. The findings of this study suggest that elevated RC levels may be a potential target related to the cardiac risk in individuals with ISR beyond traditional risk factors.

Characterized by neointimal tissue proliferation and plaque progression, the incidence and prognosis of ISR are associated with individual characteristics, including disease history and clinical symptoms [45, 46]. For example, diabetic individuals had an almost 9% rate of ISR, which was higher than that of individuals without diabetes [47]. Therefore, to verify the robustness of using RC as a prediction factor, its predictive value for clinical outcomes in subgroups was assessed. The results of this study showed that RC-related risk persisted among different subgroups (age, sex, diagnosis, hypertension, and diabetes). Previously, Yang et al. [48] discovered that prolonged exposure to elevated RC levels is also related to an increased likelihood of developing other diseases equivalent to ASCVD, such as diabetes and hypertension [49]. This interaction provides a new perspective for evaluating the role of RC in primary and secondary prevention. In the early stage of some chronic diseases, the concentration of TRL might be a potential triggering mechanism. In addition to the clinical disease background, ISR was also classified into different types based on plaque characteristics [37]. Considering the atherosclerotic potential of RC, the RC level may deserve earlier attention in individuals with vulnerable plaques but no ischemia symptoms. For those with relatively stable lesions, early interruption of exposure to high TRL may delay the need for revascularization [3]. For patients with ISR who have already suffered from compromised blood flow, a more stringent RC threshold standard based on lesion characteristics may further improve their prognosis.

Interestingly, the results of subgroup analysis showed that individuals with satisfactory LDL-C control ( $<$ 1.8 mmol/L) had a greater RC-related risk of TVF than individuals with greater LDL-C values. This tendency differed in previous research, which focused on different study populations and clinical cutoff values [50, 51, 52]. According to consensus and guidelines, LDL-C remains the primary lipid-lowering target and improves clinical outcomes after PCI [53, 54, 55]. In this study, most patients underwent statin therapy after PCI, and the difference in RC-related risk in individuals with high or low LDL-C levels may be explained by that the association between TVF residual lipid risk was partly weakened or overlapped among patients who experienced greater LDL-C lowering. Considering that most patients experienced a change in adverse atherogenic lipid profiles after post-PCI meditation [56], the RC-related risk under different LDL-C lowering levels after PCI needs to be further researched to clarify this hypothesis.

Considering the residual risk of LDL-C-lowering therapy, previous research has focused on the discordance between LDL-C and other atherogenic lipid profiles and their influence on clinical outcomes [57, 58]. As a potential lipid-lowering target, the current cutoff value of high RC has varied among studies and lacks a standard definition [59]. Utilizing several different definitions, the discordance analysis showed that individuals with concordantly high RC/low LDL-C, but not low RC/high LDL-C, had a higher follow-up TVF risk. Consistent with a previous study, this finding reaffirmed the predictive value of RC [57]. It is worth noting that a high RC level rather than a high LDL-C level appeared to be associated with an increased TVF risk. Several factors may have contributed to this result. Researchers have suggested that the biological mechanism of increased RC levels may involve increased secretion and lipolysis dysfunction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins [60]. Increased RC is related to a higher frequency of insulin resistance and pro-inflammatory status, which further amplifies its effect on cardiovascular events [61, 62]. As a type of stent failure event, most patients may undergo routine LDL-C-lowering therapy after the first PCI [63]. However, statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors do not significantly lower RC levels [49]. Thus, when LDL-C is adequately controlled, patients with high RC levels may have a residual lipid risk and poor prognosis.

Based on the findings of this study, we conclude that RC may be a risk-enhancing factor for patients with ISR. The predictive model for TVF events, which includes baseline RC level and its post-PCI trajectory, may improve cardiac risk assessment. Furthermore, although the effect of RC-lowering therapy requires validation, patients with an optimal LDL-C level are more likely to benefit from these therapies.

5. Strengths and Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, owing to its retrospective characteristic, causality could not be clearly established. Second, the direct measurement of RC is difficult to conduct in standard clinical practice; therefore, this study utilized the calculated RC method, which measured the cholesterol content of all lipoproteins that were not HDL or LDL. Thus, there may be a discordant residual risk between the calculated RC and measured RC regarding the effect of triglyceride levels. Third, during the extended follow-up period, the fluctuation of the RC level was not tracked. Considering that statin therapy could lower RC to some extent, the degree of reduction or increase in RC level should be considered in future analyses.

6. Conclusion

For patients diagnosed with ISR, RC levels were associated with increased TVF risk after PCI. RC levels emerged as an independent risk factor for TVF among individuals with ISR. This relation remained among individuals with optimal LDL-C levels ( $<$ 1.8 mmol/L). These findings reclaimed the clinical value of RC and its potential as a lipid-lowering therapeutic target. The discordant analysis and incremental predictive value of RC also show the limitations of the present cardiac risk management with a single lipidic indicator. Therefore, further research was needed to explore optimized management of a comprehensive lipid profile to improve the prognosis.

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets generated or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author, subject to a reasonable request.

Author Contributions

XHK, ZHL, and YFW conceived and designed the study. ZHL, YDS, XHK, YFW, and TX collected the relevant data, and ZHL and YDS prepared the figures and tables. YFW and ZHL drafted the manuscript. HBJ, FY, WY, PNM, XQW, and ZMW analyzed the data and critically reviewed the results. All authors contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have participated sufficiently in the work and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

In compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, this study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Nanjing First Hospital (KY20241223-KS-02). All participants provided informed written consent.

Acknowledgment

Not applicable.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.31083/RCM43867.

References

[1] Zhao D, Liu J, Wang M, Zhang X, Zhou M. Epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in China: current features and implications. Nature Reviews. Cardiology. 2019; 16: 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-018-0119-4.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar Crossref
[2] Bruno F, Marengo G, De Filippo O, Wanha W, Leonardi S, Raposeiras Roubin S, et al. Impact of Complete Revascularization on Development of Heart Failure in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Multivessel Disease: A Subanalysis of the CORALYS Registry. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2023; 12: e028475. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.028475.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[3] Giustino G, Colombo A, Camaj A, Yasumura K, Mehran R, Stone GW, et al. Coronary In-Stent Restenosis: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2022; 80: 348–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.05.017.
Cited within: 2Google Scholar
[4] Madhavan MV, Kirtane AJ, Redfors B, Généreux P, Ben-Yehuda O, Palmerini T, et al. Stent-Related Adverse Events $>$ 1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020; 75: 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.058.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[5] Lee SH, Cho JY, Kim JS, Lee HJ, Yang JH, Park JH, et al. A comparison of procedural success rate and long-term clinical outcomes between in-stent restenosis chronic total occlusion and de novo chronic total occlusion using multicenter registry data. Clinical Research in Cardiology. 2020; 109: 628–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-019-01550-7.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[6] Elbadawi A, Dang AT, Mahana I, Elzeneini M, Alonso F, Banerjee S, et al. Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for In-Stent Restenosis Versus De Novo Lesions: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2023; 12: e029300. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.029300.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[7] Xu W, Yau YK, Pan Y, Tse ETY, Lam CLK, Wan EYF. Effectiveness and safety of using statin therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in older patients with chronic kidney disease who are hypercholesterolemic: a target trial emulation study. The Lancet. Healthy Longevity. 2025; 6: 100683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100683.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[8] Bhatia HS, Wandel S, Willeit P, Lesogor A, Bailey K, Ridker PM, et al. Independence of Lipoprotein(a) and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol-Mediated Cardiovascular Risk: A Participant-Level Meta-Analysis. Circulation. 2025; 151: 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.069556.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[9] Quispe R, Martin SS, Michos ED, Lamba I, Blumenthal RS, Saeed A, et al. Remnant cholesterol predicts cardiovascular disease beyond LDL and ApoB: a primary prevention study. European Heart Journal. 2021; 42: 4324–4332. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab432.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar Crossref
[10] Wong ND, Zhao Y, Quek RGW, Blumenthal RS, Budoff MJ, Cushman M, et al. Residual atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in statin-treated adults: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Journal of Clinical Lipidology. 2017; 11: 1223–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2017.06.015.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[11] Joshi PH, Martin SS, Blumenthal RS. The remnants of residual risk. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015; 65: 2276–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.543.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[12] Landray MJ, Haynes R, Hopewell JC, Parish S, Aung T, Tomson J, et al. Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 371: 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1300955.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[13] Diaz R, Li QH, Bhatt DL, Bittner VA, Baccara-Dinet MT, Goodman SG, et al. Intensity of statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome, residual risk, and its modification by alirocumab: insights from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2021; 28: 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487320941987.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[14] Strikic D, Begic Z, Radman I, Zlopasa F, Mateljic J, Zec I, et al. Reshaping Dyslipidaemia Treatment with Bempedoic Acid-A Narrative Review. Biomedicines. 2025; 13: 1460. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13061460.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[15] Jepsen AM, Langsted A, Varbo A, Bang LE, Kamstrup PR, Nordestgaard BG. Increased Remnant Cholesterol Explains Part of Residual Risk of All-Cause Mortality in 5414 Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease. Clinical chemistry. 2016;62: 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2015.253757.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar Crossref
[16] Castañer O, Pintó X, Subirana I, Amor AJ, Ros E, Hernáez Á, et al. Remnant Cholesterol, Not LDL Cholesterol, Is Associated With Incident Cardiovascular Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020; 76: 2712–2724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.10.008.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[17] Kuntz RE, Baim DS. Defining coronary restenosis. Newer clinical and angiographic paradigms. Circulation. 1993; 88: 1310–1323. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.88.3.1310.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[18] Alfonso F, Coughlan JJ, Giacoppo D, Kastrati A, Byrne RA. Management of in-stent restenosis. EuroIntervention. 2022; 18: e103–e123. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01034.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[19] Cui C, Li P, Qi Y, Song J, Han T, Shang X, et al. Intraindividual Discordance Between Remnant Cholesterol and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Associated With Incident Stroke: Results From 2 National Cohorts. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2024; 13: e035764. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.035764.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[20] ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, et al. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023; 46: S19–S40. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc23-S002.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[21] Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL, Jr, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003; 289: 2560–2572. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.19.2560.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[22] Catapano AL, Graham I, De Backer G, Wiklund O, Chapman MJ, Drexel H, et al. 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias: The Task Force for the Management of Dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Assocciation for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Atherosclerosis. 2016; 253: 281–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2016.08.018.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[23] Vrints C, Andreotti F, Koskinas KC, Rossello X, Adamo M, Ainslie J, et al. 2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal. 2024; 45: 3415–3537. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae177.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[24] Li X, Ge Z, Kan J, Anjum M, Xie P, Chen X, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes (IVUS-ACS): a two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet. 2024; 403: 1855–1865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00282-4.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[25] Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. European Heart Journal. 2012; 33: 2551–2567.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[26] Feng X, Liu Y, Yang J, Zhou Z, Yang S, Zhou Y, et al. The prognostic role of remnant cholesterol in Asian menopausal women received percutaneous coronary intervention with acute coronary syndrome. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2024; 23: 276. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02258-y.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[27] Mauri L, Hsieh WH, Massaro JM, Ho KKL, D’Agostino R, Cutlip DE. Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 356: 1020–1029. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067731.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[28] Nordestgaard BG, Langsted A, Freiberg JJ. Nonfasting hyperlipidemia and cardiovascular disease. Current Drug Targets. 2009; 10: 328–335. https://doi.org/10.2174/138945009787846434.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[29] Khetarpal SA, Rader DJ. Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and coronary artery disease risk: new insights from human genetics. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2015; 35: e3–e9. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.114.305172.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[30] Ginsberg HN, Packard CJ, Chapman MJ, Borén J, Aguilar-Salinas CA, Averna M, et al. Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and their remnants: metabolic insights, role in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and emerging therapeutic strategies-a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society. European Heart Journal. 2021; 42: 4791–4806. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab551.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[31] Borén J, Williams KJ. The central role of arterial retention of cholesterol-rich apolipoprotein-B-containing lipoproteins in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis: a triumph of simplicity. Current Opinion in Lipidology. 2016; 27: 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOL.0000000000000330.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[32] Nordestgaard BG. Triglyceride-Rich Lipoproteins and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: New Insights from Epidemiology, Genetics, and Biology. Circulation Research. 2016; 118: 547–563. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.115.306249.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[33] Bornfeldt KE. The Remnant Lipoprotein Hypothesis of Diabetes-Associated Cardiovascular Disease. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2022; 42: 819–830. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.122.317163.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar Crossref
[34] Varbo A, Benn M, Tybjærg-Hansen A, Nordestgaard BG. Elevated remnant cholesterol causes both low-grade inflammation and ischemic heart disease, whereas elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol causes ischemic heart disease without inflammation. Circulation. 2013; 128: 1298–1309. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.003008.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[35] Nakajima K, Nakano T, Tanaka A. The oxidative modification hypothesis of atherosclerosis: the comparison of atherogenic effects on oxidized LDL and remnant lipoproteins in plasma. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2006; 367: 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2005.12.013.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[36] Yu M, Dai C, Shi J, Fu J. Immune modulation strategies to reduce in-stent restenosis. Biomaterials Science. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1039/d5bm00687b. (online ahead of print)
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[37] Song L, Mintz GS, Yin D, Yamamoto MH, Chin CY, Matsumura M, et al. Characteristics of early versus late in-stent restenosis in second-generation drug-eluting stents: an optical coherence tomography study. EuroIntervention. 2017; 13: 294–302. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00787.
Cited within: 2Google Scholar
[38] Joshi PH, Khokhar AA, Massaro JM, Lirette ST, Griswold ME, Martin SS, et al. Remnant Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Incident Coronary Heart Disease: The Jackson Heart and Framingham Offspring Cohort Studies. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2016; 5: e002765. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.115.002765.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[39] Zhou Y, Madsen JM, Özbek BT, Køber L, Bang LE, Lønborg JT, et al. The role of remnant cholesterol in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2024; 31: 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwae102.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[40] Liao J, Qiu M, Su X, Qi Z, Xu Y, Liu H, et al. The residual risk of inflammation and remnant cholesterol in acute coronary syndrome patients on statin treatment undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2024; 23: 172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02156-3.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[41] Zhang M, Chen J, Xia W, Yu Z, Zhang C, Wang W, et al. Elevated remnant cholesterol predicts poor outcome in patients with premature acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective, single-center study. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-025-03147-6. (online ahead of print)
Cited within: 1Google Scholar Crossref
[42] Palmerini T, Della Riva D, Biondi-Zoccai G, Leon MB, Serruys PW, Smits PC, et al. Mortality Following Nonemergent, Uncomplicated Target Lesion Revascularization After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis of 21 Randomized Trials and 32,524 Patients. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018; 11: 892–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.277.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[43] Iqbal J, Serruys PW, Silber S, Kelbaek H, Richardt G, Morel MA, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015; 8: e002230. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002230.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[44] Chait A, Ginsberg HN, Vaisar T, Heinecke JW, Goldberg IJ, Bornfeldt KE. Remnants of the Triglyceride-Rich Lipoproteins, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease. Diabetes. 2020; 69: 508–516. https://doi.org/10.2337/dbi19-0007.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[45] Yabushita H, Kawamoto H, Fujino Y, Tahara S, Horikoshi T, Tada M, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Drug-Eluting Balloon for In-Stent Restenosis Based on the Number of Metallic Layers. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018; 11: e005935. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005935.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[46] Dangas GD, Claessen BE, Caixeta A, Sanidas EA, Mintz GS, Mehran R. In-stent restenosis in the drug-eluting stent era. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2010; 56: 1897–1907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.07.028.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[47] Yang CD, Shen Y, Lu L, Yang ZK, Hu J, Zhang RY, et al. Visit-to-visit HbA_1⁢c variability is associated with in-stent restenosis in patients with type 2 diabetes after percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovascular Diabetology. 2020; 19: 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-020-01111-7.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[48] Yang R, Zhang J, Yu X, Yang G, Cai J. Remnant cholesterol and intensive blood pressure control in older patients with hypertension: a post hoc analysis of the STEP randomized trial. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2024; 31: 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwae001.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[49] Shao Y, Li Z, Sun M, Wu Q, Shi H, Ye L. Changes in remnant cholesterol and the incidence of diabetes: Results from two large prospective cohort studies. Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism. 2025; 27: 3645–3652. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.16383.
Cited within: 2Google Scholar
[50] Wadström BN, Wulff AB, Pedersen KM, Jensen GB, Nordestgaard BG. Elevated remnant cholesterol increases the risk of peripheral artery disease, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke: a cohort-based study. European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 3258–3269. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab705.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[51] Yang XH, Zhang BL, Cheng Y, Fu SK, Jin HM. Association of remnant cholesterol with risk of cardiovascular disease events, stroke, and mortality: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Atherosclerosis. 2023; 371: 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2023.03.012.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar Crossref
[52] Lin A, Nerlekar N, Rajagopalan A, Yuvaraj J, Modi R, Mirzaee S, et al. Remnant cholesterol and coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden assessed by computed tomography coronary angiography. Atherosclerosis. 2019; 284: 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2019.02.019.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[53] Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, Koskinas KC, Casula M, Badimon L, et al. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 111–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[54] Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, Barbato E, Berry C, Chieffo A, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal. 2023; 44: 3720–3826. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad191.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[55] Fujioka S, Shishikura D, Kusumoto H, Yamauchi Y, Sakane K, Fujisaka T, et al. Clinical impact of $\geq$ 50% reduction of low density lipoprotein cholesterol following lipid lowering therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Journal of Clinical Lipidology. 2025; 19: 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2024.10.010.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[56] Yang J, Zhang R, Han B, Li H, Wang J, Xiao Y, et al. Atherogenic lipid profile in patients with statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome: a real-world analysis from Chinese cardiovascular association database. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2024; 23: 271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02244-4.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[57] Johannesen CDL, Mortensen MB, Nordestgaard BG, Langsted A. Discordance analyses comparing LDL cholesterol, Non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B for cardiovascular risk estimation. Atherosclerosis. 2025;403: 119139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2025.119139.
Cited within: 2Google Scholar
[58] Lawler PR, Akinkuolie AO, Chu AY, Shah SH, Kraus WE, Craig D, et al. Atherogenic Lipoprotein Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease and Residual Risk Among Individuals with Low Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2017; 6: e005549. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.005549.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[59] Heo JH, Jung HN, Roh E, Han KD, Kang JG, Lee SJ, et al. Association of remnant cholesterol with risk of dementia: a nationwide population-based cohort study in South Korea. The Lancet. Healthy Longevity. 2024; 5: e524–e533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(24)00112-0.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[60] Miller M, Stone NJ, Ballantyne C, Bittner V, Criqui MH, Ginsberg HN, et al. Triglycerides and cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011; 123: 2292–2333. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182160726.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[61] Laufs U, Parhofer KG, Ginsberg HN, Hegele RA. Clinical review on triglycerides. European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 99–109c. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz785.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[62] Cao YX, Zhang HW, Jin JL, Liu HH, Zhang Y, Gao Y, et al. The longitudinal association of remnant cholesterol with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and pre-diabetes. Cardiovascular Diabetology. 2020; 19: 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-020-01076-7.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar
[63] Li M, Hou J, Gu X, Weng R, Zhong Z, Liu S. Incidence and risk factors of in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients from southern China. European Journal of Medical Research. 2022; 27: 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00640-z.
Cited within: 1Google Scholar

Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Academic Editor

Download

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Academic Editor

Article Metrics

Download

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Abstract

Keywords

References