Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 14;24(17):9945–9957. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.15594

Table 2.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis of EV markers and STEMI diagnosis

STEMI vs Ctrl

Ref. STEMI [n = 60]

Age (y) BMI (kg/m2) Sex (ref. male) Hypertension (ref. yes) Diabetes (ref. yes) Dyslipidemia (ref. yes) EV marker
EV concentration

1.07

(0.97‐1.19)

P = .193

1.09

(0.81‐1.48)

P = .567

6.13

(1.20‐9.02)

P = .036

1.10

(0.13‐9.06)

P = .928

9.73

(0.26‐21.60)

P = .200

2.71

(0.36‐20.30)

P = .331

1.02

(1.01‐1.03)

P = .010

CD40 (%)

1.03

(0.96‐1.12)

P = .393

0.98

(0.77‐1.26)

P = .894

11.10

(1.34‐27.91)

P = .026

1.27

(0.21‐7.58)

P = .792

1.26

(0.04‐21.91)

P = .898

1.37

(0.24‐7.86)

P = .724

1.05

(1.02‐1.09)

P = .002

CD62P (%)

1.01

(0.91‐1.11)

P = .951

1.03

(0.79‐1.35)

P = .811

2.59

(0.35‐18.87)

P = .348

2.13

(0.28‐16.13)

P = .464

9.63

(0.02‐29.01)

P = .380

3.56

(0.39‐32.21)

P = .259

1.01

(1.01‐1.03)

P = .014

CD41b (%)

1.01

(0.94‐1.07)

P = .932

1.01

(0.83‐1.22)

P = .963

5.18

(0.95‐28.57)

P = .058

1.17

(0.24‐5.76)

P = .850

1.33

(0.08‐20.83)

P = .838

1.40

(0.28‐7.02)

P = .687

1.02

(1.01‐1.03)

P = .029

CD42a (%)

1.01

(0.92‐1.11)

P = .849

1.12

(0.87‐1.45)

P = .383

4.39

(0.51‐37.04)

P = .177

1.49

(0.19‐11.94)

P = .709

1.67

(0.07‐34.02)

P = .752

2.17

(0.28‐16.90)

P = .459

1.01

(1.01‐1.02)

P = .007

CD31 (%)

1.05

(0.97‐1.13)

P = .208

1.03

(0.83‐1.29)

P = .786

7.75

(1.18‐41.63)

P = .033

1.34

(0.25‐7.21)

P = .731

1.55

(0.05‐53.08)

P = .808

2.10

(0.38‐11.49)

P = .391

1.05

(1.01‐1.08)

P = .003

Aggregate EV marker

1.16

(0.80‐1.67)

P = .428

1.22

(0.04‐1.19)

P = .079

18.21

(0.05‐56.32)

P = .362

1.10

(0.13‐9.06)

P = .928

23.61

(0.02‐64.31)

P = .164

6.25

(0.01‐37.93)

P = .812

2.20

(1.04‐4.64)

P = .038

Association of EV markers and conventional cardiovascular risk factors (including age, BMI, sex, hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia), with STEMI diagnosis. Serum samples from STEMI patients on presentation to the emergency department were compared with healthy controls (Ctrl) in the training cohort (n = 60). Odds ratios (95%‐confidence intervals) are shown. Differences were considered significant when P < .05.