Suppr超能文献

中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值能否作为冠状动脉疾病、冠状动脉扩张和冠状动脉血流缓慢的一个指标?

Could neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio be an indicator of coronary artery disease, coronary artery ectasia and coronary slow flow?

作者信息

Yılmaz Mücahid, Korkmaz Hasan, Bilen Mehmet Nail, Uku Ökkeş, Kurtoğlu Ertuğrul

机构信息

1 Department of Cardiology, Elazığ Training and Research Hospital, Elazığ, Turkey.

2 Department of Cardiology, Fırat University School of Medicine, Elazığ, Turkey.

出版信息

J Int Med Res. 2016 Dec;44(6):1443-1453. doi: 10.1177/0300060516664637. Epub 2016 Nov 10.

Abstract

Objective To determine whether neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) differed between patients with isolated coronary artery disease (CAD), isolated coronary artery ectasia (CAE), coronary slow flow and normal coronary anatomy. Methods Patients who underwent coronary angiography were consecutively enrolled into one of four groups: CAD, coronary slow flow, CAE and normal coronary anatomy. Results The CAD ( n = 40), coronary slow flow ( n = 40), and CAE ( n = 40) groups had similar NLRs (2.51 ± 0.7, 2.40 ± 0.8, 2.6 ± 0.6, respectively) that were significantly higher than patients with normal coronary anatomy ( n = 40; NLR, 1.73 ± 0.7). Receiver operating characteristics demonstrated that with NLR > 2.12, specificity in predicting isolated CAD was 85% and sensitivity was 75%, with NLR > 2.22 specificity in predicting isolated CAE was 86% and sensitivity was 75%. With NLR > 1.92, specificity in predicting coronary slow flow was 89% and sensitivity was 75%. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified NLR as an independent predictor of isolated CAE (β = -0.499, 95% CI -0.502, -0.178; P <  0.001), CAD (β = -0.426, 95% CI -1.321, -0.408; P <  0.001), and coronary slow flow (β = -0.430, 95% CI -0.811, -0.240; P = 0.001 Table 2 ). Conclusions NLR was higher in patients with CAD, coronary slow flow and CAE versus normal coronary anatomy. NLR may be an indicator of CAD, CAE and coronary slow flow.

摘要

目的 确定孤立性冠状动脉疾病(CAD)、孤立性冠状动脉扩张(CAE)、冠状动脉血流缓慢和冠状动脉解剖结构正常的患者之间中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值(NLR)是否存在差异。方法 连续纳入接受冠状动脉造影的患者,分为四组之一:CAD组、冠状动脉血流缓慢组、CAE组和冠状动脉解剖结构正常组。结果 CAD组(n = 40)、冠状动脉血流缓慢组(n = 40)和CAE组(n = 40)的NLR相似(分别为2.51±0.7、2.40±0.8、2.6±0.6),均显著高于冠状动脉解剖结构正常的患者(n = 40;NLR,1.73±0.7)。受试者工作特征曲线显示,NLR>2.12时,预测孤立性CAD的特异性为85%,敏感性为75%;NLR>2.22时,预测孤立性CAE的特异性为86%,敏感性为75%。NLR>1.92时,预测冠状动脉血流缓慢的特异性为89%,敏感性为75%。多因素logistic回归分析确定NLR是孤立性CAE(β = -0.499,95%CI -0.502,-0.178;P < 0.001)、CAD(β = -0.426,95%CI -1.321,-0.408;P < 0.001)和冠状动脉血流缓慢(β = -0.430,95%CI -0.811,-0.240;P = 0.001,表2)的独立预测因子。结论 与冠状动脉解剖结构正常相比,CAD、冠状动脉血流缓慢和CAE患者的NLR更高。NLR可能是CAD、CAE和冠状动脉血流缓慢的一个指标。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d276/5536743/21ff7d7ea8ca/10.1177_0300060516664637-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验