MTable 1 Comparison of two groups of basic information and facts. Index Male/Female (n) Age (Y) High blood pressure (n) Diabetes (n) Total cholesterol (mmol/l) Triglyceride (mmol/l) Low-density lipoprotein (mmol/l) High-density lipoprotein (mmol/l) Clopidogrel resistance group (n = 60) 33/27 64.four 9.9 51 9 4.eight 1.three 1.5 0.7 3.five 0.8 1.1 0.3 Clopidogrel sensitive group (n = 210) 105/105 63.1 11.2 181 29 4.six 1.1 1.5 0.eight 3.two 0.4 1.two 0.4 t/x2 0.812 0.055 0.055 1.191 0.000 3.156 1.796 P .417 .815 .815 .235 1.000 .002 .performed utilizing PI3Kγ medchemexpress Logistic regression analysis. P .05 was regarded as statistically considerable.tiveness. CYP2C19 genetic typing test benefits: The DNAPCR testing and fluorescent gene chip test results are presented in Figure 1. 3.4. CYP2C19 genotype frequency and frequency comparison of those two groups of sufferers The 1/1 genotype in the clopidogrel sensitive group accounted for 51.42 , which was greater than that of the resistance group (20.00 ). The 2/2 allelotype from the clopidogrel sensitive group accounted for 1.42 , which was reduced than that with the resistance group (35.00 ), as well as the difference was statistically Topo II Compound significant (P .05), refer to Table 3. 3.5. Comparison of CYP2C19 allele frequency in these two groups of sufferers The 1 allele frequency of the clopidogrel sensitive group accounted for 82.85 , which was greater than that of your resistance group (40.00 ). The two allele frequency from the clopidogrel sensitive group accounted for 14.28 , which was lower than that of the resistance group 55.00 , plus the difference was statistically important (P .05), refer to Table four. three.6. Comparison of IL-6 levels in these two groups of individuals before and after treatment Right after treatment, the serum IL-6 level of sufferers inside the clopidogrel resistance group was 17.21 0.98 ng/L, which was substantial greater than that with the sensitive group 11.21 0.68 ng/L, and also the distinction was statistically substantial (P .05), refer to Table five.3. Results3.1. Single aspect analysis Among these 270 sufferers, 60 individuals had clopidogrel resistance (clopidogrel resistance group), accounting for 22.22 , whilst 210 sufferers had been clopidogrel sensitive (clopidogrel sensitive group), accounting for 77.78 . The platelet inhibition ratio on the clopidogrel resistance group was 23 7 , which was substantially reduced than that of your clopidogrel sensitive group (65 13 ). The low density lipoprotein level of the clopidogrel sensitive group was 3.two 0.six mmol/l, which was drastically reduce than that of your clopidogrel resistance group 3.five 0.8 mmol/l. Therefore, the distinction was statistically significant (P .05). For the other indicators of your individuals in these 2 groups, including gender, blood lipid and chronic disease history, the difference was not statistically significant, refer to Table 1. 3.2. Logistic regression evaluation The aspect using a substantial difference via the single aspect comparison with the general information of those two groups was taken as the independent variable, along with the possibility of occurrence of clopidogrel resistance was taken as the dependent variable. These 2 variables had been substituted in to the logistic regression equation. Upon logistic regression analysis, history of diabetes, history of high blood pressure, raise in low density lipoprotein and CYP2C19 mutant gene had been the independent threat factors of clopidogrel resistance (Table 2). 3.3. CYP2C19 typing testing results The CYP2C19 polymorphic website two and 3 of individuals in the present study conform towards the Hardy.