Literature DB >> 29457093

Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and platelet to lymphocyte ratio are superior to other inflammation-based prognostic scores in predicting the mortality of patients with gastrointestinal perforation.

Yuichiro Shimoyama1, Osamu Umegaki1, Tomoyuki Agui2, Noriko Kadono1, Toshiaki Minami3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is gaining interest as an independent predictor of survival in patients with various clinical conditions. No study to date has reported an association between inflammation-based prognostic scores, including the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), NLR, platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), and Prognostic Index (PI), and mortality in patients with gastrointestinal perforation (GIP). We compared the prognostic value of these measures.
FINDINGS: A total of 32 patients with GIP were retrospectively enrolled. Patients were assessed according to the GPS, NLR, PLR, PI, and PNI. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify variables associated with mortality. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were also performed. Overall survival rates (in-hospital mortality) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences in survival rates between groups were compared by the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis of significant variables revealed NLR (HR 1.257, 95% CI 1.035-1.527, P = 0.021) and PLR (HR 1.004, 95% CI 1.001-1.007, P = 0.016) at the time of admission to the intensive care unit to be independently associated with in-hospital mortality. AUC analysis revealed Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-Glasgow Coma Scale (SOFA-GCS) (0.73) to be superior to NLR (0.57) and PLR (0.58) for predicting mortality, and a high SOFA-GCS score was associated with reduced overall survival (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: NLR and PLR were superior to other inflammation-based prognostic scores in predicting the mortality of patients with GIP.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gastrointestinal perforation; In-hospital mortality; Inflammation-based prognostic score

Year:  2017        PMID: 29457093      PMCID: PMC5804646          DOI: 10.1186/s40981-017-0118-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JA Clin Rep        ISSN: 2363-9024


Findings

Introduction

The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has gained interest as an independent predictor of survival in patients with various clinical conditions, ranging from oncological to cardiovascular diseases. NLR has also been reported to predict bacteremia better than other infection markers [1], and an NLR > 7 was reportedly an independent marker of mortality in patients with bacteremia [2]. Gastrointestinal perforation (GIP) is a life-threatening disease with a high mortality rate; GIP often leads to shock and usually requires active rescue in the intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency laparotomy [3]. No previous study has reported an association between inflammation-based prognostic scores and outcomes in patients with GIP. We hypothesized that NLR measured at the time of admission to the ICU may better predict in-hospital mortality in patients with GIP, as compared with other inflammation-based prognostic scores. To test this hypothesis, we compared the prognostic value of various inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with GIP.

Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective study in a 16-bed ICU. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Osaka Medical College (Osaka, Japan). A total of 40 patients diagnosed with GIP, who underwent surgery and were treated in the ICU of Osaka Medical College Hospital between January 2014 and June 2016, were retrospectively enrolled. Of these, 32 patients were evaluated, excluding those who were aged 18 years or younger; who were pregnant; who had immunosuppressive disease (e.g., HIV), or were undergoing immunosuppressive therapy (e.g., chemotherapy, chronic use of steroids, autoimmune disease treatment) within 1 month of the study; and who had cardiac arrest at the time of ICU admission. Individual patient consent was not obtained since all data used in this study were acquired retrospectively from the laboratory information system without any additional blood sampling or laboratory analysis. The main outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. The following demographic and clinical data were collected: age, sex, comorbidities (cancer, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and renal disease), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-Glasgow Coma Scale (SOFA-GCS) score at ICU day 1, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality. Since our study population included intubated patients under sedation with propofol and/or dexmedetomidine at ICU admission, we excluded the GCS item from the SOFA score. Blood samples were obtained upon ICU admission for measurements of CRP, albumin, white blood cell count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, and platelet count. The GPS, NLR, PLR, PI, and PNI were obtained as shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Inflammation-based prognostic scores

Scoring systemsScore
Glasgow Prognostic Score
 CRP (≤ 10 mg l−1) and albumin (≥ 35 g l−1)0
 CRP (≤ 10 mg l−1) and albumin (< 35 g l−1)1
 CRP (> 10 mg l−1) and albumin (≥ 35 g l−1)1
 CRP (> 10 mg l−1) and albumin (< 35 g l−1)2
Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio
 Neutrophil count: lymphocyte count
Plt to lymphocyte ratio
 Plt count: lymphocyte count
Prognostic Index
 CRP (≤ 10 mg l−1) and white blood cell count (≤ 11 × 109 l−1)0
 CRP (≤ 10 mg l−1) and white blood cell count (> 11 × 109 l−1)1
 CRP (> 10 mg l−1) and white blood cell count (≤ 11 × 109 l−1)1
 CRP (>10 mg l−1) and white blood cell count (>11 × 109 l−1)2
Prognostic Nutritional Index
 Albumin (g l−1) + 5 × total lymphocyte count 109 l−1

CRP C-reactive protein, Plt platelet

Inflammation-based prognostic scores CRP C-reactive protein, Plt platelet Descriptive analysis was performed for all variables. Continuous variables were expressed as median (interquartile range), and categorical variables as counts (percentage). Patient characteristics were compared between survivors and non-survivors using Fischer’s exact test. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazards model) were used to examine associations between patient characteristics and prognostic factors. Analyses using Cox proportional hazards models were performed by forward selection of variables which were found to be significant by univariate analysis and inflammation-based prognostic scores. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were generated for variables which were significant in the multivariate analysis, and areas under the curve (AUCs), cutoff values, sensitivities, specificities, and predictive values were calculated. Using these cutoff values, overall survival rates (in-hospital mortality) were calculated with the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences in survival rates between groups were compared by the log-rank test. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using the BellCurve for Excel software package v.2.0 (Social Survey Research Information Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).

Results

Baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Twenty-four (75%) patients were survivors (perforation in the colon, 16; small intestine, 6; stomach, 1; appendix, 1), and 8 (25%) were non-survivors (colon, 4; small intestine, 4). The median age was 74 (range, 65.5–79) years for survivors and 66.5 (range, 64.5–73) years for non-survivors. Among survivors, 10 (41.7%) patients were males and 14 (58.3%) were females, and among non-survivors, 4 (50%) were males and 4 (50%) were females.
Table 2

Patient demographics

All patientsUnivariate analysis
SurvivorsNon-survivors P value
Variables(n = 24)(n = 8)
Age, year74 (65.5–79)66.5 (64.5–73)0.58
Female14 (58.3)4 (50)0.62
Male10 (41.7)4 (50)
Cancer16 (67)6 (75)0.69
CAD10
Diabetes40
Hypertension80
Renal disease1 (4)3 (38)0.039
Observation period36 (24–46.5)20.5 (13.8–25.8)0.0069
Albumin (g l−1)19 (14.8–24)23 (13.8–28.3)0.406
CRP (mg l−1)11.5 (8.3–18)9.1 (5.4–15)0.809
WBC (× 109 l−1)6.3 (3.6–8.4)4.8 (3.8–6.8)0.552
Neutrophil count (× 109 l−1)5.3 (2.9–7.2)3.8 (3.2–4.9)0.454
Lymphocyte count (× 109 l−1)0.49 (0.36–0.78)0.31 (0.28–0.37)0.064
Plt count (× 104 mm−3)17.3 (15.2–23.2)21.1 (8.0–29)0.484

CAD coronary artery disease, CRP C-reactive protein, WBC white blood cell, Plt platelet

Table 3

Inflammation-based prognostic scores

All patientsUnivariate analysis
SurvivorsNon-survivors P value
Variables(n = 24)(n = 8)
SOFA-GCS score at ICU admission3 (2–4.25)6.5 (4.8–8.3)0.0087
GPS (0/1/2)(0/8/16)(0/5/3)0.161
NLR8.7 (6.4–14.9)13.7 (7.7–15.6)0.432
PLR390.2 (279.8–688.5)596.2 (274.8–783.8)0.057
PI (0/1/2)(8/12/4)(4/4/0)0.262
PNI20.6 (17.4–25.8)24.3 (15.4–29.8)0.611

SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, ICU intensive care unit, GPS Glasgow Prognostic Score, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet to lymphocyte ratio, PI Prognostic Index, PNI Prognostic Nutritional Index

Patient demographics CAD coronary artery disease, CRP C-reactive protein, WBC white blood cell, Plt platelet Inflammation-based prognostic scores SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, ICU intensive care unit, GPS Glasgow Prognostic Score, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet to lymphocyte ratio, PI Prognostic Index, PNI Prognostic Nutritional Index Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models revealed NLR (HR 1.257, 95% CI 1.035–1.527, P = 0.021) and PLR (HR 1.004, 95% CI 1.001–1.007, P = 0.016) to be independently associated with in-hospital mortality (Table 4). Cutoff values for mortality obtained from ROC analysis (Fig. 1) were 13.28 (sensitivity, 62.5%; specificity, 66.7%; area under the curve (AUC), 0.57; 95% CI, 0.31–0.83; P = 0.607) for NLR and 590.44 (sensitivity, 62.5%; specificity, 66.7%; AUC, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.33–0.84; P = 0.521) for PLR (Tables 5 and 6). AUC analyses revealed SOFA-GCS (0.73) to be superior to NLR (0.57) and PLR (0.58) for predicting mortality (Table 6). A high SOFA-GCS score was associated with reduced overall survival (P < 0.05) (Fig. 2).
Table 4

Predictors of mortality by multivariate analysis

PredictorsHazard ratio95% CI P value
SOFA-GCS score1.7091.108–2.6370.015
NLR1.2571.035–1.5270.021
PLR1.0041.001–1.0070.016
Renal disease1.2380.13–11.8210.853

SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet to lymphocyte ratio

Fig. 1

Receiver operating characteristic curves of inflammation-based prognostic scores for predicting mortality. a NLR. b PLR. c SOFA-GCS

Table 5

Performance parameters for predictors of mortality

PredictorsCutoff valueSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)PPV (%)NPV (%)
SOFA-GCS67587.566.791.3
NLR13.2862.566.738.584.2
PLR590.4462.566.738.584.2

PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet to lymphocyte ratio

Table 6

Comparison of AUC between predictors

PredictorsAUC95% CI P value
SOFA-GCS0.730.44–1.020.112
NLR0.570.31–0.830.607
PLR0.580.33–0.840.521

AUC area under the curve, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet to lymphocyte ratio

Fig. 2

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for inflammation-based prognostic scores. a NLR. b PLR. c SOFA-GCS

Predictors of mortality by multivariate analysis SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet to lymphocyte ratio Receiver operating characteristic curves of inflammation-based prognostic scores for predicting mortality. a NLR. b PLR. c SOFA-GCS Performance parameters for predictors of mortality PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet to lymphocyte ratio Comparison of AUC between predictors AUC area under the curve, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, NLR neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, PLR platelet to lymphocyte ratio Kaplan-Meier survival curves for inflammation-based prognostic scores. a NLR. b PLR. c SOFA-GCS

Discussion

NLR and PLR were found to be superior to other inflammation-based prognostic scores in predicting the mortality of patients with GIP. NLR and PLR are based primarily on the physiological link between neutrophilia and lymphopenia with systemic inflammation. Jilma et al. [4] studied changes in white blood cell types after inflammation and reported a 300% increase in circulating neutrophils, 96% decrease in monocytes, and 85% decrease in lymphocytes 4 to 6 h after inflammation. Below, we discuss the literature surrounding NLR and the prognostic capabilities of NLR for GIP. Growing evidence suggests the usefulness of NLR in the prediction of survival in various contexts, such as lung cancer, colorectal cancer, orthotopic liver transplantation for primary hepatocellular carcinoma, postoperative coronary artery bypass grafting, chronic heart failure, pulmonary emboli, and acute pancreatitis [1, 5, 6]. Moreover, NLR was a more sensitive parameter than increased white blood cell count in patients with suspected appendicitis [7]. These data suggest the importance of NLR in multiple patient populations. In the present study, NLR and PLR had a positive predictive value of 38.5% and a negative predictive value of 84.2%, suggesting that NLR and PLR may be more useful for ruling out mortality, rather than predicting it. NLR and PLR can be obtained easily, cheaply, and rapidly and can provide relevant information for necessary interventions within the first few hours of hospital admission. As discussed earlier, studies have shown that NLR predicts bacteremia better than other infection markers [1] and an NLR > 7 was reportedly an independent predictor of mortality in patients with bacteremia [2]. In another study, the initial NLR measured at ED admission was independently associated with 28-day mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock [8]. However, these previous studies did not assess associations between inflammation-based prognostic scores, including the GPS, NLR, PLR, PNI, and PI, and mortality in patients with GIP. Our results are informative in this respect. This study has a potential limitation. Given the retrospective, single-center design of the study and small cohort, multivariate analysis may be difficult to apply. A large-scale prospective validation study will be needed to confirm our results.

Conclusion

NLR and PLR were superior to other inflammation-based prognostic scores in predicting the mortality of patients with GIP.
  8 in total

1.  Regulation of adhesion molecules during human endotoxemia. No acute effects of aspirin.

Authors:  B Jilma; A Blann; T Pernerstorfer; P Stohlawetz; H G Eichler; B Vondrovec; J Amiral; V Richter; O F Wagner
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 21.405

2.  Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of adverse outcomes of acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  Basem Azab; Neil Jaglall; Jean Paul Atallah; Ari Lamet; Venkat Raja-Surya; Bachir Farah; Martin Lesser; Warren D Widmann
Journal:  Pancreatology       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 3.996

3.  Prognostic value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a restrospective study.

Authors:  Mehmet Kayrak; Halil Ibrahim Erdoğan; Yalcin Solak; Hakan Akilli; Enes Elvin Gül; Oğuzhan Yildirim; Murat Erer; Nezire Belgin Akilli; Taha Tahir Bekci; Alpay Aribaş; Mehmet Yazici
Journal:  Heart Lung Circ       Date:  2013-07-12       Impact factor: 2.975

4.  Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic marker in critically-ill septic patients.

Authors:  Sung Yeon Hwang; Tae Gun Shin; Ik Joon Jo; Kyeongman Jeon; Gee Young Suh; Tae Rim Lee; Hee Yoon; Won Chul Cha; Min Seob Sim
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 2.469

5.  Use of the neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio in the diagnosis of appendicitis.

Authors:  D A Goodman; C B Goodman; J S Monk
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 0.688

6.  Lymphocytopenia and neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio predict bacteremia better than conventional infection markers in an emergency care unit.

Authors:  Cornelis P C de Jager; Paul T L van Wijk; Rejiv B Mathoera; Jacqueline de Jongh-Leuvenink; Tom van der Poll; Peter C Wever
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Procalcitionin as a diagnostic marker to distinguish upper and lower gastrointestinal perforation.

Authors:  Yang Gao; Kai-Jiang Yu; Kai Kang; Hai-Tao Liu; Xing Zhang; Rui Huang; Jing-Dong Qu; Si-Cong Wang; Rui-Jin Liu; Yan-Song Liu; Hong-Liang Wang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Eosinophil count and neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio as prognostic markers in patients with bacteremia: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Roser Terradas; Santiago Grau; Jordi Blanch; Marta Riu; Pere Saballs; Xavier Castells; Juan Pablo Horcajada; Hernando Knobel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total
  9 in total

1.  Blood routine test is a good indicator for predicting premature rupture of membranes.

Authors:  Fengxia Zhan; Shuzhen Zhu; Haiying Liu; Qian Wang; Guanghui Zhao
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 2.352

2.  Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a multicenter, propensity score matching analysis.

Authors:  Chang Woo Kim; Jong Wan Kim; Sang Nam Yoon; Bo Young Oh; Byung Mo Kang
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 2.030

3.  Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, Monocyte-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio, and Mean Platelet Volume-to-Platelet Count Ratio as Biomarkers in Critically Ill and Injured Patients: Which Ratio to Choose to Predict Outcome and Nature of Bacteremia?

Authors:  Dragan Djordjevic; Goran Rondovic; Maja Surbatovic; Ivan Stanojevic; Ivo Udovicic; Tamara Andjelic; Snjezana Zeba; Snezana Milosavljevic; Nikola Stankovic; Dzihan Abazovic; Jasna Jevdjic; Danilo Vojvodic
Journal:  Mediators Inflamm       Date:  2018-07-15       Impact factor: 4.711

4.  The prognostic value of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio on in-hospital mortality in admitted adult traffic accident patients.

Authors:  Sion Jo; Taeoh Jeong; Jae Baek Lee; Youngho Jin; Jaechol Yoon; Boyoung Park
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Platelet-Lymphocyte and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio for Prediction of Hospital Outcomes in Patients with Abdominal Trauma.

Authors:  Ayman El-Menyar; Ahammed Mekkodathil; Amani Al-Ansari; Mohammad Asim; Eman Elmenyar; Sandro Rizoli; Hassan Al-Thani
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Prediction of hospital mortality after colorectal perforation surgery from inflammation-based prognostic scores.

Authors:  Kensuke Kudou; Tetsuya Kusumoto; Yuho Ebata; Sho Nambara; Yasuo Tsuda; Eiji Kusumoto; Rintaro Yoshida; Yoshihisa Sakaguchi; Koji Ikejiri
Journal:  Surg Open Sci       Date:  2022-01-26

7.  The Incidence of Itching in Thoracic Epidural Morphine Applications: Can Laboratory Parameters Be Effective in Predicting Itching?

Authors:  Gulay Ulger; Ramazan Baldemir; Musa Zengin; Hilal Sazak; Ali Alagoz
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-02-15

8.  The Effects of Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio, Platelet-Lymphocyte Ratio and Prognostic Markers in Determining the Mortality in Patients Diagnosed With Pneumonia in Intensive Care.

Authors:  Omer Faruk Altas; Mehmet Kizilkaya
Journal:  Medeni Med J       Date:  2021-06-18

9.  Urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin values alone and combined with Prognostic Index predict septic AKI, DIC, and shock: a pilot study.

Authors:  Yuichiro Shimoyama; Osamu Umegaki; Noriko Kadono; Toshiaki Minami
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2020-08-18
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.