Why the study?
Predicting MACE after coronary interventions remains critical, prompting interest in the prognostic role of subclinical inflammation markers.
Does the product of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting?
Does the product of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) predict major adverse cardiovascular events in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The combined product of NLR and GDF-15 serves as a prognostic marker for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients following coronary artery bypass grafting.
Background Predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) after coronary interventions is an urgent and important task. Subclinical inflammation markers are becoming increasingly investigated for this purpose. Aim To determine the role of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) in predicting MACE in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods This prospective observational study included 80 patients with coronary artery disease who underwent CABG and were followed up for at least 1 year. In a prospective follow-up, a combined endpoint (MACE) had 27.5% (a total of 22 events). Results The values of GDF-15 and NLR were comparable in groups with and without MACE. A ROC analysis showed a low AUC for NLR (AUC = 0.566 (p = 0.363)) and GDF-15 (AUC = 0.621 (p = 0.096)). The value of the product GDF-15*NLR was determined. The median was 3108.05 (2069; 4145) for patients who did not have MACE and 4108.8 (2779.4; 5890.5) for patients with MACE (p = 0.010). This association remained after the introduction of amendments to sex, age, diabetes, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Conclusions The value of the product indicators NLR and GDF-15 is associated with the development of adverse cardiovascular events in patients after CABG.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Гарганеева et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: