Evaluation of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 as a biomarker of unplanned revascularization and major adverse cardiac events in coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: The stented coronary artery remains at high-risk of complications, particularly in the form of stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis. Improving our ability to identify patients at high-risk for these complications may provide opportunities for intervention. PAI-1 has been implicated in the pathophysiology of stent complications in preclinical studies, suggesting it may be a clinically valuable biomarker to predict adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: Plasma PAI-1 levels were measured in 910 subjects immediately after coronary angiography between 2015 and 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence of unplanned revascularization (UR) at 12 months. The secondary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: UR and MACE occurred in 49 and 103 patients in 12 months. Reduced plasma PAI-1 levels were associated with UR (4386.1 pg/mL [IQR, 2778.7-6664.6], n = 49, vs. 5247.6 pg/mL [IQR, 3414.1-7836.1], n = 861; p = 0.04). Tertile PAI-1 levels were predictive of UR after adjustment for known clinical risk factors associated with adverse outcomes. In post-hoc landmark analysis, UR was enhanced with low plasma PAI-1 levels for late complications (beyond 30 days). Finally, an updated systematic review and meta-analysis did not reveal an association between plasma PAI-1 and MACE. CONCLUSION: PAI-1 levels are not independently associated with UR nor MACE in patients undergoing angiography but associated with UR following adjustment with known clinical factors. In our landmark analysis, low PAI-1 levels were associated with UR for late stent complications. As such, future studies should focus on the mediatory role of PAI-1 in the pathogenesis of stent complications.

Stigma of mental and physical illness and the use of mobile technology.

Research has shown the stigma attached to mental disabilities, yet little research has directly compared the experiences of people with physical disabilities and those with mental disabilities. Not only are both conditions likely perceived as stigmatizing, but the pervasive use of mobile technology may be one means by which people with disabilities can manage and understand their disability. Four hundred and eighty-seven individuals with physical and/or psychological disabilities completed a survey examining whether they would be willing to use mobile technology to manage their disability and how stigmatizing they perceived their disability to be. Willingness to use mobile technology was related to the age of the sample as well as the type of disability. Individuals with psychological disabilities were more likely to use certain forms of mobile technology relative to those with physical disabilities. Observed differences between physical and psychological disabilities are discussed in terms of the symbolic interaction stigma model.