| Literature DB >> 35470355 |
Yuan Wang1, Lidan Ma2, Meng Zhang1, Jin Wei1, Xuening Li1, Xudong Pan1, Aijun Ma1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND In recent studies, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was reported to be a good predictor of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), but its role in cerebral small-vessel disease (CSVD) is still controversial. We aimed to explore the value of NLR to identify CSVD. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled 466 CSVD patients and 413 controls. The total burden score of CSVD was calculated according to MRI results, and imaging subgroups were divided according to MRI. The 90-day outcome was evaluated using the modified Rankin scale (mRS). NIHSS score, mRS, clinical information, biochemical parameters, and NLR were recorded, and we analyzed the relationship between NLR and CSVD. RESULTS NLR was a risk factor for CSVD (OR 1.58, 95%CI 1.015~1.322; P=0.029). NLR was positively correlated with CSVD (r=0.259; P=0.001). The AUC was 0.774, with a cut-off value of 1.89 (95% CI 0.742~0.806), P=0.000. NLR was significantly different among the different total burden score groups of CSVD (P=0.009). NLRs were significant different among enlarged perivascular space (EPVS) groups (P=0.017), periventricular white matter high signal (PWMHS) groups (P=0.028), and deep white matter high signal (DWMHS) groups (P=0.004), but no significant difference was found among cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) groups (P=0.118). NLR was correlated with short-term outcome of CSVD (P=0.000). The AUC was 0.732 (95% CI 0.684~0.779), with a cut-off value of 2.413 for predicting a poor CSVD prognosis. CONCLUSIONS NLR has potential diagnostic value for CSVD, and it can predict the short-term outcome of CSVD. Therefore, NLR may be a useful biomarker to predict CSVD and its outcome.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35470355 PMCID: PMC9057675 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.935516
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Flowchart of the selection of CSVD patients.
Baseline characteristics of the study population.
| CSVD (466) | Control (413) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Age, years, mean (SD) | 62.62 (11.77) | 63.17 (13.00) | 0.523 |
| Females,% | 181 (38.8%) | 247 (59.8%) | 0.370 |
|
| |||
| Hypertension, % | 316 (67.8%) | 228 (55.2%) | 0.000 |
| Diabetes, % | 142 (30.4%) | 77 (18.6%) | 0.000 |
| Coronary artery disease, % | 38 (8.1%) | 121 (29.2%) | 0.000 |
| Hyperlipidemia, % | 30 (6.8%) | 12 (2.9%) | 0.022 |
| Hyperuricemia, % | 33 (7.0%) | 16 (3.8%) | 0.055 |
| Current smokers, % | 153 (32.8%) | 62 (15.0%) | 0.000 |
| The history of drinking, % | 111 (23.8%) | 46 (11.1%) | 0.000 |
|
| |||
| SBP, mmHg, mean (SD) | 150.61 (22.92) | 138.41 (21.63) | 0.000 |
| DBP, mmHg, mean (SD) | 84.50 (14.41) | 78.44 (12.28) | 0.000 |
| glucose,mmol/L, median (SD) | 6.29 (2.50) | 5.79 (2.01) | 0.001 |
| TG,mmol/L, median (SD) | 1.47 (0.86) | 1.80 (4.61) | 0.123 |
| TC,mmol/L, median (SD) | 4.38 (1.61) | 4.69 (1.09) | 0.001 |
| LDL,mmol/L, median (SD) | 2.59 (0.86) | 2.90 (0.87) | 0.000 |
| BUN,mmol/L, median (SD) | 5.21 (1.77) | 5.27 (1.96) | 0.633 |
| Ccr,umol/L, median (SD) | 87.48 (21.31) | 71.86 (27.59) | 0.000 |
| CRP,mg/L, median (SD) | 8.59 (20.56) | 4.33 (13.40) | 0.007 |
| Uric acid,umol/L, median (SD) | 307.35 (87.61) | 311.07 (89.83) | 0.542 |
| The elf inhibition,mg/L, median (SD) | 0.98 (0.40) | 3.50 (30.44) | 0.08 |
| Homocysteine,umol/L,median (SD) | 13.32 (8.29) | 12.16 (7.9) | 0.045 |
| White blood cell count ×109/L, median (SD) | 6.42 (2.11) | 8.96 (50.21) | 0.277 |
| Neutrophil count,×109/L, median (SD) | 3.89 (1.82) | 3.73 (2.28) | 0.258 |
| INR, mean (SD) | 0.92 (0.09) | 1.22 (4.60) | 0.180 |
| Fibrinogen,g/L, median (SD) | 2.83 (0.67) | 2.97 (1.52) | 0.093 |
| D-dimer,ng/mL, median (SD) | 346.49 (621.59) | 107.62 (418.32) | 0.000 |
| NLR, median (IQR) | 1.97 (1.48, 2.68) | 1.51 (1.08, 2.02) | 0.000 |
SBP – systolic blood pressure; DBP – diastolic blood pressure; TG – triglycerides; TC – total cholesterol; LDL – low density lipoprotein; BUN – blood urea nitrogen; Ccr – creatinine; INR – International Normalized Ratio; NLR – neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; IQR – interquartile range; SD – standard deviation.
P<0.05.
Multivariate logistic regression of risk factors for CSVD.
| B | S.E. | Wald | df | P value | Exp(B) | 95% EXP(B) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The lower limit | The upper limit | |||||||
| SBP | .022 | .005 | 19.470 | 1 | .000 | 1.022 | 1.012 | 1.032 |
| DBP | .016 | .008 | 3.943 | 1 | .047 | 1.016 | 1.000 | 1.032 |
| TC | .059 | .114 | .262 | 1 | .609 | 1.060 | .847 | 1.327 |
| LDL | −.541 | .164 | 10.922 | 1 | .001 | .582 | .422 | .802 |
| Glu | .156 | .043 | 12.894 | 1 | .000 | 1.169 | 1.074 | 1.273 |
| NLR | .147 | .067 | 4.754 | 1 | .029 | 1.580 | 1.015 | 1.322 |
| Current smokers | .854 | .255 | 11.197 | 1 | .001 | 2.350 | 1.425 | 3.876 |
| The history of drinking | .248 | .287 | .748 | 1 | .387 | 1.281 | .731 | 2.247 |
SBP – systolic blood pressure; DBP – diastolic blood pressure; TC – total cholesterol; LDL – low density lipoprotein white; NLR – neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio.
Figure 2(A) ROC curve analysis of difference in NLR between the CSVD group and the control group. The AUC was 0.774 (95% CI 0.742~0.806, P=0.000); (B). Relationship between NLR and NIHSS, P=0.004.
Figure 3Relationship between NLR and the total load score of CSVD. (A) Comparison of NLR among CSVD load score groups, P=0.009; (B) Comparison of NLR among load score groups in males, P=0.002; (C) Comparison of NLR among load score groups in females, P=0.354.
Figure 4(A) Comparison of NLR among EPVS grading groups, P=0.017; (B) Comparison of NLR among groups with PWMHS, P=0.028; (C) Comparison of NLR among groups with DWMHS, P=0.004. (D) Comparison of NLR among CMB grading groups, P=0.118.
Figure 5Relationship between NLR and CSVD outcome. (A) Comparison of NLR between different mRS groups, P=0.000; (B) NLR ROC curve for evaluating prognosis of CSVD. The AUC of NLR was 0.732 (95% CI 0.684~0.779, P=0.000).