Why the study?
Measuring neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio could improve risk stratification of patients with ACS, particularly in resource-limited settings, prompting evaluation of its predictive value in determining ACS.
Does neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) correlate with markers of severity in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Does neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) correlate with markers of severity in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
NLR is a simple, accessible inflammatory marker that correlates with CPK-MB and LVEF, serving as an independent prognostic factor for ACS severity.
NLR may aid ACS risk stratification in resource-limited settings; leaves open its added value over standard markers in prospective studies.
Introduction: Measurement of a simple inflammatory marker like neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) could improve the risk stratification of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), especially in a limited resource country like ours. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the predictive value of NLR in determining ACS. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted. A total of 101 patients suffering from angina/angina equivalents with electrocardiography (ECG) changes or typical elevation of cardiac enzymes (troponin T/creatinine phosphokinase-MB [CPK-MB]) who present to the hospital within 12 h of the onset of symptoms were selected and analyzed for the study. Results: The study found that NLR significantly correlated with CPK-MB and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Conclusion: It was found that NLR showed significant correlations with CPK-MB and LVEF, indicating its usefulness as a predictive factor for the severity of ACS. NLR was also not affected by the type of ACS or other comorbidities/risk factors of diabetes and hypertension, indicating its role as an independent prognostic factor in ACS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kashyap et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: