Why the study?
Is serum Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio (LMR) associated with in-stent restenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease and prior bare-metal stent implantation?
Is serum Lymphocyte-to-Monocyte Ratio (LMR) associated with in-stent restenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease and prior bare-metal stent implantation?
Lower serum lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio is independently associated with a higher risk of bare-metal stent in-stent restenosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease.
LMR may refine post-stent ISR risk assessment in stable CAD; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
In-stent restenosis (ISR) is a common clinical problem in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Inflammatory process plays a pivotal role in the development of ISR. Both lymphocytes and monocytes are associated with inflammatory status. Recently, it has been shown that the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) is a novel inflammatory marker. We aimed to investigate the association of serum LMR levels and ISR in patients undergoing bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation. The study included 273 patients (aged 61 ± 11 years, 66.5% men) with a history of BMS implantation and a further control coronary angiography due to stable angina pectoris. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with and without ISR. The LMR levels were significantly lower in patients with ISR than in those without ISR (2.50 ± 0.95 vs 3.87 ± 1.51, respectively, P < .001). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, the LMR was independently associated with ISR (odds ratio [OR]: 0.310, 95% confidence interval: 0.166-0.579, P < .001) together with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (OR: 1.244, P = .008), reason for stent implantation (OR: 6.566, P = .003), stent diameter (OR: 0.015, P < .001), and stent length (OR: 1.137, P = .007). In conclusion, LMR levels are inversely related to ISR in patients treated with BMS implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murat et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: