2.1 Baseline data
This study comprised a total of 150 participants, including 61 males (40.67%). The average age was 66.73 ± 13.73 years, and the mean body mass index was 24.44 ± 3.06 kg/m². The proportions of patients with hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, stroke, and renal insufficiency were 75.33%, 27.33%, 21.33%, 23.33%, 6.67%, 18.67%, and 4.67%, respectively. Smoking and alcohol consumption were reported by 18% and 21.33% of participants, respectively. The baseline mean levels were as follows: total cholesterol 4.67 ± 1.24 mmol/L, triglycerides 1.39 ± 0.58 mmol/L, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 2.89 ± 1.11 mmol/L, fasting blood glucose 6 ± 2.07 mmol/L, creatinine 74.15 ± 28 µmol/L, and uric acid 340.75 ± 86.73 µmol/L. The mean Triglyceride-Glucose Index for all patients was 8.67 ± 0.56. (Table 1.)
Table 1
Baseline characteristics of study participants according to atherosclerosis in different places
| level | Overall | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | p |
---|
n | | 150 | 37 | 37 | 37 | 38 | |
gender (%) | female | 89 (59.3) | 24 (64.9) | 19 (51.4) | 23 (62.2) | 22 (57.9) | 0.661 |
| male | 61 (40.7) | 13 (35.1) | 18 (48.6) | 14 (37.8) | 16 (42.1) | |
age (mean (SD)) | | 66.7333 (13.7307) | 63.4324 (15.7983) | 66.1081 (15.7265) | 67.4865 (13.3804) | 69.4474 (8.7540) | 0.285 |
height (mean (SD)) | | 163.5533 (8.0590) | 162.9189 (7.1000) | 164.7027 (9.3864) | 162.4595 (7.2403) | 164.5263 (8.0831) | 0.529 |
weight (mean (SD)) | | 65.5620 (10.5206) | 64.5135 (10.6527) | 65.3324 (11.6287) | 64.1351 (9.4264) | 68.6053 (9.9017) | 0.235 |
BMI (mean (SD)) | | 24.4400 (3.0620) | 24.2946 (3.6559) | 23.9541 (2.9423) | 24.2108 (2.4235) | 25.3211 (3.0719) | 0.227 |
HT (%) | 0 | 37 (24.7) | 14 (37.8) | 12 (32.4) | 6 (16.2) | 5 (13.2) | 0.033 |
| 1 | 113 (75.3) | 23 (62.2) | 25 (67.6) | 31 (83.8) | 33 (86.8) | |
DM (%) | 0 | 109 (72.7) | 32 (86.5) | 30 (81.1) | 27 (73.0) | 19 (50.0) | 0.002 |
| 1 | 41 (27.3) | 5 (13.5) | 7 (18.9) | 10 (27.0) | 19 (50.0) | |
Hyperlipidemia (%) | 0 | 118 (78.7) | 30 (81.1) | 30 (81.1) | 24 (64.9) | 33 (86.8) | 0.115 |
| 1 | 32 (21.3) | 7 (18.9) | 7 (18.9) | 13 (35.1) | 5 (13.2) | |
CHD (%) | 0 | 115 (76.7) | 29 (78.4) | 29 (78.4) | 27 (73.0) | 29 (76.3) | 0.94 |
| 1 | 35 (23.3) | 8 (21.6) | 8 (21.6) | 10 (27.0) | 9 (23.7) | |
AF (%) | 0 | 140 (93.3) | 35 (94.6) | 33 (89.2) | 35 (94.6) | 36 (94.7) | 0.724 |
| 1 | 10 ( 6.7) | 2 ( 5.4) | 4 (10.8) | 2 ( 5.4) | 2 ( 5.3) | |
stroke (%) | 0 | 122 (81.3) | 31 (83.8) | 32 (86.5) | 29 (78.4) | 29 (76.3) | 0.653 |
| 1 | 28 (18.7) | 6 (16.2) | 5 (13.5) | 8 (21.6) | 9 (23.7) | |
smokeing (%) | 0 | 123 (82.0) | 33 (89.2) | 33 (89.2) | 30 (81.1) | 26 (68.4) | 0.062 |
| 1 | 27 (18.0) | 4 (10.8) | 4 (10.8) | 7 (18.9) | 12 (31.6) | |
drinking (%) | 0 | 118 (78.7) | 31 (83.8) | 31 (83.8) | 28 (75.7) | 27 (71.1) | 0.449 |
| 1 | 32 (21.3) | 6 (16.2) | 6 (16.2) | 9 (24.3) | 11 (28.9) | |
TC (mean (SD)) | | 4.6727 (1.2411) | 4.5162 (0.8129) | 4.1359 (0.9939) | 4.7400 (1.3812) | 5.3087 (1.4081) | < 0.001 |
TG (mean (SD)) | | 1.3908 (0.5844) | 0.7608 (0.1253) | 1.1311 (0.2210) | 1.6373 (0.2818) | 2.0429 (0.4975) | < 0.001 |
sdLDL (mean (SD)) | | 30.7317 (21.4027) | 21.9054 (7.0703) | 30.8703 (31.3746) | 33.7270 (19.2521) | 36.9121 (18.3213) | 0.016 |
B (mean (SD)) | | 0.8697 (0.2937) | 0.7624 (0.1458) | 0.7559 (0.2275) | 0.9614 (0.3622) | 1.0082 (0.3002) | < 0.001 |
GLU (mean (SD)) | | 6.0074 (2.0715) | 4.9943 (0.7258) | 5.3008 (0.8162) | 5.8276 (0.9442) | 7.8861 (3.1680) | < 0.001 |
Cr (mean (SD)) | | 74.1487 (28.0227) | 69.7838 (17.0394) | 77.5135 (34.4485) | 72.5486 (29.8174) | 76.8421 (28.6135) | 0.6 |
UA (mean (SD)) | | 340.7533 (86.7281) | 302.2432 (83.7504) | 349.2162 (83.8276) | 346.4865 (87.8340) | 363.5526 (83.4929) | 0.014 |
WBC (mean (SD)) | | 6.2085 (1.6743) | 6.0703 (1.6731) | 5.8749 (1.7139) | 6.4692 (1.7860) | 6.4658 (1.4869) | 0.333 |
BMI, body mass index; CHD, coronary heart disease; AF, atrial fibrillation; TC, cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein; FBG, fasting blood glucose; TyG, triglyceride-glucose index
2.2 Relationship between TyG and IMT
The results of this study indicate a significant correlation (P < 0.05) between the TyG index of patients and the intima-media thickness (IMT) in both carotid and lower limb arteries. Furthermore, the scatter plots reveal a positive correlation (Table 2 and Fig. 1).
Table 2
Relationship between TyG and IMT
| | ρ | P value |
---|
Common carotid artery | Left | 0.253 | 0.002** |
Right | 0.22 | 0.007** |
Internal carotid artery | Left | 0.231 | 0.004** |
Right | 0.234 | 0.004** |
Common femoral artery | Left | 0.195 | 0.017* |
Right | 0.201 | 0.014* |
Superficial femoral artery | Left | 0.237 | 0.003** |
Right | 0.208 | 0.011* |
Popliteal artery | Left | 0.226 | 0.005** |
Right | 0.265 | 0.001** |
2.3 Relationship between TyG and PSV
Although, the results exhibit no significant correlation between the TyG index of patients and the Peak Systolic Velocity (PSV) in the bilateral common carotid arteries and internal carotid arteries (P > 0.05), a negative correlation trend can be discerned in the scatter plot. Additionally, a significant correlation is observed between the TyG index and the PSV of the left femoral artery (P = 0.019), which is not mirrored in the right femoral artery, and a positive correlation trend is noted between the TyG index and femoral artery PSV, in contrast to the observed trend in the carotid arteries. (Table 3 and Fig. 2)
Table 3
Relationship between TyG and PSV
| | ρ | P value |
---|
Common carotid artery | Left | -0.12 | 0.146 |
Right | -0.152 | 0.064 |
Internal carotid artery | Left | -0.085 | 0.302 |
Right | -0.067 | 0.415 |
Common femoral artery | Left | 0.193 | 0.019* |
Right | 0.143 | 0.083 |
The TyG index of patients demonstrates a significant correlation with the Resistance Index (RI) in the right internal carotid artery (P = 0.002). Despite that there is no significant correlation observed between the TyG index of patients and the RI in the bilateral common carotid arteries and the left internal carotid artery (P > 0.05), a positive correlation trend can be discerned in the scatter plot (Table 4 and Fig. 3).
Table 4
Relationship between TyG and RI
| | ρ | P value |
---|
Common carotid artery | Left | 0.079 | 0.339 |
Right | 0.069 | 0.402 |
Internal carotid artery | Left | 0.04 | 0.624 |
Right | 0.25 | 0.002** |
2.4 The relationship between TyG and baPWV, and FMD
The results of this study reveal a negative correlation between the TyG index of patients and brachial artery Flow-Mediated Dilation (FMD) with statistical significance (P < 0.001). Similarly, both left and right Brachial-Ankle Pulse Wave Velocity (baPWV) demonstrated a close association with the TyG index, exhibiting a positive correlation with statistical significance (P < 0.001). (Table 5, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5 )
Furthermore, a correlation analysis was performed between the bilateral Ankle-Brachial Index (ABI) and the TyG index of patients. In contrast to the earlier findings for brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) and flow-mediated dilation (FMD), no significant correlation was observed (P > 0.05). However, a negative correlation trend can be discerned in the corresponding scatter plots (Table 5, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 ).
Table 5
Relationship between TyG and FMD、baPWV、ABI
| | ρ | P value |
---|
FMD | | -0.414 | < 0.001*** |
baPWV | Left | 0.314 | < 0.001*** |
Right | 0.353 | < 0.001*** |
ABI | Left | -0.047 | 0.566 |
Right | 0.065 | 0.428 |
2.5 The correlation between TyG and plaque progression
To investigate the independent effect of TyG on plaque progression, we employed three multiple logistic regression models (Table 2). In Model 1, no covariates were adjusted. Model 2 adjusted for age and gender, while Model 3 further adjusted for BMI, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation, stroke, renal insufficiency, smoking, drinking, total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, sdLDL, apolipoprotein a.1, apolipoprotein a.2, apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein C.II, apolipoprotein C.III, glucose, creatinine, uric acid, and white blood cells.
The results show that, in Model 1, TyG is significantly associated with atherosclerosis progression in both carotid and lower limb arteries (P < 0.0001), with HR and 95% CI is 7.54 (3.47–16.38) and 10.81 (4.63–25.22), respectively. These findings are consistent with those of Models 2 and 3. In Model 2, the HR and 95% CI are 7.53 (3.33–17.04) and 13.17 (4.99–34.74), respectively. In Model 3, the HR and 95% CI are 0.03 (0.01–0.09) and 431.92 (139.13-1340.81), respectively. Table 6
Table 6
Multiple logistic regression models for TyG
Variable | Model-I HR | 95%CI | P-value | Model-II HR | 95%CI | P-value | Model-III HR | 95%CI | P-value |
---|
Carotid artery |
TyG | 7.54 | 3.47–16.38 | < 0.0001 | 7.53 | 3.33–17.04 | < 0.0001 | 0.03 | 0.01–0.09 | < 0.0001 |
Q1 | 1 | | | 1 | | | 1 | | |
Q2 | 2.19 | 0.71–6.72 | 0.172 | 1.950 | 0.61–6.27 | 0.263 | 0.690 | 0.12–4.11 | 0.682 |
Q3 | 5.45 | 1.84–16.16 | 0.002 | 5.480 | 1.75–17.15 | 0.003 | 0.220 | 0.01–3.93 | 0.301 |
Q4 | 19.37 | 6.00-62.51 | < 0.0001 | 19.06 | 5.62–64.65 | < 0.0001 | 0.12 | 0.002–6.72 | 0.306 |
Lower limb artery |
TyG | 10.81 | 4.63–25.22 | < 0.0001 | 13.17 | 4.99–34.74 | < 0.0001 | 431.92 | 139.13-1340.81 | < 0.0001 |
Q1 | 1 | | | 1 | | | 1 | | |
Q2 | 1.61 | 0.61–4.22 | 0.332 | 1.36 | 0.47–4.19 | 0.549 | 0.94 | 0.12–7.27 | 0.953 |
Q3 | 8.57 | 2.99–24.56 | < 0.0001 | 13.61 | 3.67–50.53 | < 0.0001 | 2.66 | 0.11–65.45 | 0.549 |
Q4 | 15.6 | 4.82–50.53 | < 0.0001 | 18.06 | 4.87–66.93 | < 0.0001 | 0.72 | 0.01–71.56 | 0.887 |
2.6 The predictive value of TyG for plaque progression
The ROC curve analysis in this study revealed a statistically significant predictive value of the Triglyceride-Glucose Index (TyG) for the progression of plaques in the carotid arteries (AUC = 0.774, Sensitivity = 0.687, Specificity = 0.807, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.696–0.852), lower limb arteries (AUC = 0.8, Sensitivity = 0.807, Specificity = 0.71, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.728–0.871). All AUC values were greater than 0.7, suggesting that the TyG index can effectively predict the progression of plaques in the carotid and lower limb arteries within five years. (Table 7,Figs. 6, and Fig. 7)
TyG was then compared with the Framingham Risk Score. The AUC for predicting carotid artery atherosclerosis using the Framingham Risk Score was 0.7806, and the AUC for predicting lower extremity artery atherosclerosis was 0.7532, showing that TyG and the Framingham Risk Score are comparable in predicting the progression of atherosclerosis in the carotid and lower extremity.
Table 7
The ROC analysis of the progression of atherosclerosis with TyG
| AUC | Sensitivities | Specificities | P value | 95%CI |
---|
CAS progression | 0.774 | 0.687 | 0.807 | < 0.001*** | 0.696–0.852 |
LEAS progression | 0.8 | 0.807 | 0.71 | < 0.001*** | 0.728–0.871 |
Both CAS and LEAS progression | 0.822 | 0.778 | 0.792 | < 0.001*** | 0.75–0.894 |
*Red: TyG, Yellow: Framingham cardiovascular risk scores
*Red: TyG, Yellow: Framingham cardiovascular risk scores
2.7 Subgroup
This study also performed stratified analysis and interaction tests based on age (< 65 years or ≥ 65 years), gender, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, stroke, renal insufficiency, smoking, and alcohol consumption (Figure. 8). The results showed that TyG was significantly associated with higher risks of carotid atherosclerosis progression in the non-atrial fibrillation subgroup (P = 0.043), with an HR (95% CI) of 4.26 (2.67–6.80) for this subgroup compared to an HR (95% CI) of 0.52 (0.07–3.86) for the atrial fibrillation subgroup.
TyG was significantly associated with a higher risk of lower limb atherosclerosis progression in the < 65 years subgroup (P = 0.027), with an HR (95% CI) of 11.2 (2.86–43.89) for this subgroup, compared to an HR (95% CI) of 2.51 (1.68–3.76) for the ≥ 65 years subgroup. TyG was also significantly associated with higher risks of lower limb atherosclerosis progression in the non-smoking subgroup (P = 0.029), with an HR (95% CI) of 3.91 (2.42–6.32) for this subgroup compared to an HR (95% CI) of 1.68 (0.87–3.24) for the smoking subgroup.