Department of Cardiology, Elaziğ Education and Research Hospital, Elaziğ, Turkey. Email:
Department of Cardiology, Elaziğ Medical Park Hospital and Department of Cardiology, Istinye University, Elaziğ, Turkey.
Cardiovasc J Afr. 2020 Sep/Oct;31(5):227-235. doi: 10.5830/CVJA-2019-049. Epub 2020 Oct 2.
The pathophysiology of isolated coronary artery ectasia (CAE) involves atherosclerosis and inflammation. Eosinophils and lymphocytes have been found to play a significant role in inflammation, atherosclerosis and endothelial dysfunction. Many studies have explored the relationship between isolated CAE and systemic inflammation. However, there are no data regarding the relationship between eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (ELR) and isolated CAE. Therefore, this study analysed the relationship between ELR and isolated CAE.
All patients who underwent coronary angiography between January 2009 and June 2018 were investigated retrospectively. Of 16 240 patients, 232 patients with isolated CAE (141 males) and 247 age- and gender-matched control subjects (130 males) with normal coronary angiography (NCA) were enrolled in this study. Baseline demographic and laboratory data were obtained from the hospital database. The severity of isolated CAE was determined according to the Markis classification, vessel count and diffuseness of ectasia.
Patients with angiographic isolated CAE had significantly elevated white blood cell (WBC) and eosinophil counts and ELR values compared to patients with NCA [8.11 ± 1.75 vs 7.49 ± 1.80 × 10 cells/l, < 0.0001; 0.22 (0.13-0.32) vs 0.19 (0.12-0.28) × 10 cells/l, = 0.02; 0.11 (0.06-0.17) vs 0.08 (0.05-0.12), < 0.0001. The ELR value for Markis I was significantly higher than for Markis IV (p = 0.04), and three-vessel isolated CAE was significantly higher than onevessel isolated CAE ( = 0.04). Additionally, the ELR value for diffuse ectasia (Markis class I, II and III) was significantly higher compared to focal (Markis class IV) ectasia ( = 0.02). In receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses, it was determined that an ELR value > 0.099, measured in isolated CAE patients at application, had a predictive specificity of 60.3% and a sensitivity of 56.5% (area under the curve: 0.604, 95% confidence interval: 0.553-0.655, < 0.0001).
Patients with isolated CAE had higher blood eosinophil counts and ELR. Furthermore, the ELR was significantly correlated with severity of isolated CAE. These findings demonstrate that ELR may have a significant role in the aetiopathogenesis of isolated CAE.
孤立性冠状动脉扩张(CAE)的病理生理学涉及动脉粥样硬化和炎症。嗜酸性粒细胞和淋巴细胞已被发现在内皮功能障碍、动脉粥样硬化和炎症中发挥重要作用。许多研究探讨了孤立性 CAE 与全身炎症之间的关系。然而,目前尚无关于嗜酸性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(ELR)与孤立性 CAE 之间关系的数据。因此,本研究分析了 ELR 与孤立性 CAE 之间的关系。
回顾性分析 2009 年 1 月至 2018 年 6 月间接受冠状动脉造影的所有患者。在 16240 例患者中,纳入 232 例孤立性 CAE 患者(男性 141 例)和 247 例年龄和性别匹配的、具有正常冠状动脉造影(NCA)的对照患者(男性 130 例)。从医院数据库中获取患者的基线人口统计学和实验室数据。根据 Markis 分类、血管计数和扩张程度确定孤立性 CAE 的严重程度。
与 NCA 患者相比,患有血管造影孤立性 CAE 的患者的白细胞(WBC)和嗜酸性粒细胞计数以及 ELR 值显著升高[8.11 ± 1.75 比 7.49 ± 1.80×10^3 细胞/l,<0.0001;0.22(0.13-0.32)比 0.19(0.12-0.28)×10^3 细胞/l,=0.02;0.11(0.06-0.17)比 0.08(0.05-0.12),<0.0001]。Markis I 级的 ELR 值明显高于 Markis IV 级(p=0.04),三血管孤立性 CAE 明显高于单血管孤立性 CAE(=0.04)。此外,弥漫性扩张(Markis 分类 I、II 和 III)的 ELR 值明显高于局限性扩张(Markis 分类 IV)(=0.02)。在受试者工作特征(ROC)分析中,确定孤立性 CAE 患者应用时 ELR 值>0.099 具有 60.3%的预测特异性和 56.5%的敏感性(曲线下面积:0.604,95%置信区间:0.553-0.655,<0.0001)。
患有孤立性 CAE 的患者的血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数和 ELR 值较高。此外,ELR 与孤立性 CAE 的严重程度显著相关。这些发现表明 ELR 可能在孤立性 CAE 的发病机制中发挥重要作用。