胡昌燦 于海初 孫桂霞 郭俊杰 劉曉川 張曉東
[摘要] 目的 探討血液炎癥標志物血小板/淋巴細胞比值(PLR)、中性粒細胞/淋巴細胞比值(NLR)與非ST段抬高型急性冠狀動脈綜合征(NSTE-ACS)風險分層及院內預后的相關性,評估PLR和NLR對院內心血管事件的預測價值。方法 選取NSTE-ACS病人372例,其中有心血管不良事件(MACE)組36例,無MACE組336例,比較兩組基線臨床資料、PLR、NLR的差異,評估PLR、NLR與院內MACE的相關性;應用Logistic回歸分析NLR、PLR與NSTE-ACS病人院內MACE事件的相關性;通過受試者工作特征曲線(ROC曲線)分析PLR、NLR對院內MACE的預測價值,并比較預測價值大小。結果 與無MACE組比較,有MACE組年齡、尿酸、NLR、PLR、Gensini評分均明顯升高,舒張壓、肌酐清除率(Ccr)水平明顯降低,差異有統(tǒng)計學意義(t=-4.879~4.345,P<0.01)。Logistic回歸分析顯示,NLR(r=1.322,95%CI=1.067~1.638)、PLR(r=1.012,95%CI=1.005~1.019)為NSTE-ACS病人發(fā)生院內MACE的獨立預測因子。ROC曲線分析顯示,PLR、NLR預測院內MACE發(fā)生的面積分別為0.739、0.737;應用MEDCALC的Delong方法分析二者的曲線下面積差異無統(tǒng)計學意義(P>0.05)。根據(jù)對院內MACE最大預測價值的PLR值分為兩組,PLR>127.5組收縮壓、Ccr顯著低于PLR≤127.5組,PLR及Gensini評分指標顯著高于PLR≤127.5組,差異有統(tǒng)計學意義(t=-2.61~20.74,P<0.05);PLR>127.5組院內MACE、急性心力衰竭及非致死性心肌梗死發(fā)生率顯著高于PLR≤127.5組,差異均有統(tǒng)計學意義(χ2=10.46~31.77,P<0.05)。根據(jù)NLR值分為兩組,NLR>2.0組較NLR≤2.0組肌鈣蛋白-I(TnI)、總膽紅素、谷草轉氨酶(AST)、肌酐、NLR、Gensini評分顯著增高,差異有統(tǒng)計學意義(t=2.30~16.91,P<0.05);NLR>2.0組院內MACE、急性心力衰竭及非致死性心肌梗死發(fā)生率均顯著高于NLR≤2.0組(χ2=5.89~25.48,P<0.05)。結論 PLR與NLR均為NSTE-ACS發(fā)生院內MACE的獨立預測因子,二者對院內MACE的預測價值相當。
[關鍵詞] 急性冠狀動脈綜合征;血小板計數(shù);中性粒細胞;淋巴細胞
[中圖分類號] R542.2 ?[文獻標志碼] A ?[文章編號] ?2096-5532(2019)04-0485-07
[ABSTRACT] Objective To investigate the correlation of two blood inflammatory markers, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), with risk stratification and in-hospital prognosis of non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), and to evaluate the predictive value of NLR and PLR for in-hospital cardiovascular events. Methods A total of 372 patients with NSTE-ACS were divided into major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) group (n=36) and non-MACE group (n=336). Baseline clinical data, PLR, and NLR were compared between the two groups to evaluate the correlation of PLR and NLR with in-hospital MACE. Logistic regression was used to analyze the correlation of PLR and NLR with in-hospital MACE in patients with NSTE-ACS. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of PLR and NLR for in-hospital MACE and compare the predictive value between them. ?Results Compared with the non-MACE group, the MACE group had significantly increased age, uric acid level, NLR, PLR, and Gensini score as well as significantly reduced diastolic blood pressure and creatinine clearance rate (Ccr) (t=-4.879 to 4.345,P<0.01). The logistic regression analysis showed that NLR and PLR were independent predictors of in-hospital MACE in patients with NSTE-ACS (r=1.322,95%CI=1.067-1.638;r=1.012,95%CI=1.005~1.019). The area under the ROC curve for in-hospital MACE was 0.739 and 0.737 for PLR and NLR, respectively. There was no significant difference in the area under the curve between NLR and PLR according to the Delong method of MEDCALC (P>0.05). All the patients were divided into two groups according to the PLR or NLR values with the?maximum predictive value for in-hospital MACE. The PLR>127.5 group had significantly lower systolic blood pressure and Ccr as well as significantly higher PLR and Gensini score than the PLR ≤127.5 group (t=-2.61 to 20.74,P<0.05). The PLR>127.5 group also had significantly higher incidence rates of in-hospital MACE, acute heart failure, and nonfatal myocardial infarction than the PLR ≤127.5 group (χ2=10.46-31.77,P<0.05). The NLR>2.0 group had significantly higher levels of troponin I, total bilirubin, aspartate transaminase, creatinine, NLR, and Gensini score than the NLR ≤2.0 group (t=2.30-16.91,P<0.05). The NLR>2.0 group also had significantly higher incidence rates of in-hospital MACE, acute heart failure, and nonfatal myocardial infarction than the NLR ≤2.0 group (χ2=5.89-25.48,P<0.05). ?Conclusion Both PLR and NLR are independent predictors of in-hospital MACE in patients with NSTE-ACS. They have similar predictive value for in-hospital MACE.
[KEY WORDS] acute coronary syndrome; platelet count; neutrophile granulocyte; lymphocytes
非ST段抬高型急性冠狀動脈綜合征(NSTE-ACS)為冠心病的常見類型,其發(fā)病率及致死率在我國均呈上升趨勢,若NSTE-ACS早期進行危險分層、盡早干預則對改善其預后至關重要[1]。血小板/淋巴細胞比值(PLR)及中性粒細胞/淋巴細胞比值(NLR)為新型、容易檢測的全身炎癥反應標志物,近年有研究顯示,PLR、NLR與NSTE-ACS冠狀動脈病變嚴重程度、危險分層及預后顯著相關[2-7]。但PLR與NLR對NSTE-ACS病人院內心血管不良事件(MACE)預測價值大小國內外鮮有研究。本研究回顧性分析2016年7月—2017年7月在青島大學附屬醫(yī)院心內科住院NSTE-ACS病人372例的臨床資料,旨在評估PLR、NLR與NSTE-ACS風險分層及院內預后的相關性,探討PLR與NLR對院內心血管事件的預測價值。
1 資料和方法
1.1 研究對象
NSTE-ACS病人372例,男225例,女147例。NSTE-ACS診斷符合2016年中華醫(yī)學會的《非ST段抬高急性冠狀動脈綜合征診斷和治療指南》[1]。納入標準:病人年齡18~85歲;均經(jīng)冠狀動脈造影(CAG)檢查并證實至少存在1支冠狀動脈血管狹窄>50%。排除標準:①臨床資料不全;②合并急、慢性感染性疾病;③肝腎功能嚴重受損;④合并血液系統(tǒng)疾病、惡性腫瘤或自身免疫性疾病;⑤既往有冠狀動脈介入治療或冠狀動脈旁路移植術(CABG)病史;⑥正在服用或既往長期服用影響血常規(guī)的藥物;⑦近期接受重大外科手術或者創(chuàng)傷;⑧碘或碘造影劑過敏。
1.2 研究方法
1.2.1 臨床資料采集 收集受試者入院時臨床基線資料,包括年齡、性別、收縮壓、舒張壓、高血壓史、糖尿病史及吸煙史,入院24 h內心肌酶檢查結果,實驗室檢查指標包括三酰甘油(TG)、總膽固醇(TC)、谷丙轉氨酶(ALT)、谷草轉氨酶(AST)、低密度脂蛋白膽固醇(LDL-C)、高密度脂蛋白膽固醇(HDL-C)、肌酐、空腹血糖、尿酸等,血常規(guī)指標包括中性粒細胞計數(shù)、血小板計數(shù)、淋巴細胞計數(shù)、平均血小板體積(MPV)等,術前心臟彩超檢查結果主要包括左心室射血分數(shù)(LVEF)。
1.2.2 CAG檢查 所有受試者均采用Judkin法行選擇性CAG,多體位投照,對左前降支、左回旋支、右冠狀動脈中至少1支血管狹窄≥75%或左主干狹窄≥50%的病人行急診或擇期經(jīng)皮冠狀動脈介入(PCI)治療處理罪犯血管,罪犯血管通過心電圖、心臟超聲及血管內超聲等檢查,由2位經(jīng)驗豐富的心內科介入醫(yī)師評定。其中行PCI治療359例;未達到上述標準僅行CAG后藥物治療3例;達到上述標準,但考慮冠狀動脈病變嚴重行CABG治療10例。
1.2.3 Gensini評分 按CAG結果,用Gensini評分標準[8]對冠狀動脈及其分支病變嚴重程度進行評估。①根據(jù)狹窄程度進行評分:1%~25%為1分,26%~50%為2分,51%~75%為4分,76%~90%為8分,91%~99%為16分,100%為32分。②病變部位系數(shù):左冠狀動脈主干×5.0;前降支近段×2.5,中段×1.5;心尖支及第一對角支均×1.0,第二對角支×0.5;回旋支近段×2.5,鈍緣支、回旋支遠段及后降支均×1.0,后側支×0.5;右冠狀動脈近、中、遠段均×1.0,后降支×1.0。③病變的積分:以每條冠狀動脈狹窄程度評分×該病變部位的系數(shù)。如病人有多處血管病變,則以各病變的評分總和為該病人冠狀動脈病變嚴重程度的總積分。
1.2.4 院內主要MACE 包括全因死亡、急性心力衰竭、非致死性心肌梗死、新發(fā)惡性心律失常等的發(fā)生情況。
1.3 統(tǒng)計學方法
采用SPSS 24.0及MEDCALC軟件進行統(tǒng)計學分析,計量資料結果以±s形式表示,各組間符合正態(tài)分布且方差齊的計量資料比較采用獨立樣本的t檢驗,方差不齊的采用t′檢驗;計數(shù)資料以頻數(shù)或率表示,數(shù)據(jù)間比較采用卡方檢驗。應用單因素及多因素Logistic回歸分析評估PLR、NLR與院內MACE的相關性;應用受試者工作特征曲線(ROC曲線)分別評估PLR、NLR對NSTE-ACS病人院內MACE的靈敏度和特異度,Delong方法對PLR、NLR的ROC曲線進行比較。以P<0.05為差異有統(tǒng)計學意義。
2 結 ?果
2.1 有無發(fā)生院內MACE病人臨床特點比較
根據(jù)是否發(fā)生院內MACE,將372例NSTE-ACS病人分為有MACE組(A組)36例以及無MACE組(B組)336例。與無MACE組相比較,有MACE組年齡、尿酸、NLR、PLR、Gensini評分明顯升高,舒張壓、肌酐清除率(Ccr)水平明顯降低,差異有統(tǒng)計學意義(t=-4.879~4.345,P<0.01)。兩組高血壓史、糖尿病史、吸煙史、總膽紅素、ALT、TG、TC、HDL-C、LDL-C、空腹血糖、肌酐等指標比較差異無顯著性(P>0.05)。見表1。
2.2 NLR、PLR與院內MACE發(fā)生的相關性
Spearman分析顯示,NLR與PLR有相關性(ρ=0.634,P<0.01)。以NSTE-ACS病人是否發(fā)生MACE為因變量,以發(fā)生MACE為1、未發(fā)生MACE為0,年齡、高血壓史、糖尿病史、TnI、空腹血糖、尿酸、Ccr、LVEF、PLR、NLR為自變量,先行單因素分析對自變量篩選。結果顯示,年齡、TnI、尿酸、Ccr、LVEF、PLR、NLR與是否發(fā)生MACE正相關(r=0.906~1.388,P<0.05)。多因素Logistic回歸分析顯示,年齡、TnI、尿酸、Ccr、LVEF等為MACE的影響因素,PLR(OR=1.012,95%CI為1.005~1.019,P=0.001)、NLR(OR=1.322,95%CI為1.067~1.638,P=0.011)為發(fā)生院內MACE的獨立預測因子。見圖1和表2、3。
2.3 PLR、NLR對院內MACE發(fā)生的預測價值
ROC曲線分析顯示,PLR、NLR的曲線下面積(AUC)分別為0.739、0.737(均大于0.5),對MACE具有一定的預測價值。應用Delong方法分析顯示,PLR與NLR預測院內MACE發(fā)生的AUC相比較,差異無統(tǒng)計學意義(P=0.96),提示PLR與NLR對院內MACE的預測價值相當(圖2)。當PLR=127.5時其對院內MACE的預測價值最大,靈敏度為80.6%,特異度為67.6%;當NLR=2.0時其對院內MACE事件的預測價值最大,靈敏度為88.9%,特異度為56.2%。見表4。
2.4 不同PLR、NLR值對臨床相關指標及院內MACE的影響
根據(jù)對院內MACE最大預測價值的PLR值,
3 討 ?論
急性冠狀動脈綜合征(ACS)是由于冠狀動脈嚴重狹窄和(或)易損斑塊破裂或糜爛所致的急性血栓形成,伴或不伴血管收縮、微血管栓塞,冠狀動脈血流減低和心肌缺血而引起一系列臨床癥狀的急性臨床綜合征[1]。ACS包括急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)、非ST段抬高型心肌梗死及不穩(wěn)定型心絞痛。STEMI致死、致殘率高,對STEMI病人早期再灌注治療能有效降低發(fā)生心源性猝死風險,已成為普遍共識。同樣,NSTE-ACS作為冠心病的嚴重類型,其發(fā)病率及致死率在我國呈上升趨勢,因此對于NSTE-ACS早期進行危險分層、盡早干預,改善其預后至關重要[9]。
本研究結果顯示,NSTE-ACS病人中PLR與NLR均為NSTE-ACS發(fā)生院內MACE的獨立預測因子,二者對院內MACE的預測價值相當。
炎癥反應參與冠狀動脈粥樣硬化的所有階段。NLR、PLR作為重要的血液炎癥反應標志物[10-11],與NSTE-ACS的發(fā)生、發(fā)展均密切相關[12-13]。發(fā)生NSTE-ACS時,壞死心肌和受損的基質產(chǎn)生損傷相關分子模式(DAMPs),從而激活補體級聯(lián)反應,刺激Toll樣受體/白細胞介素-1,導致核因子κB活化并誘導細胞因子、趨化因子和黏附分子,導致梗死區(qū)中性粒細胞和單核細胞聚集、外滲[14]。另一方面,發(fā)生NSTE-ACS時引起的應激反應及心肌損傷可導致腎上腺素、糖皮質激素升高,引起外周血白細胞升高,同時糖皮質激素會誘發(fā)細胞凋亡,引起淋巴細胞減少[5]。因此,NLR作為兩種炎性因子的組合被認為是一項重要的血液炎癥反應標志物[10]。
PLR最初作為一種炎癥反應標志物,用來評估腫瘤病人的預后[15-16]。隨著研究的不斷深入,其逐漸被用來評估各種心血管疾病,如高血壓、冠心病、外周動脈閉塞疾病病人的預后[17-20]。PLR與心血管疾病及不良事件預后相關的機制尚不明確,但PLR代表血小板比例的增高及淋巴細胞比例的減少。一方面有不少研究顯示,各種刺激如系統(tǒng)感染、炎性狀態(tài)、出血等的作用可促進一系列炎癥遞質,如白細胞介素-1(IL-1)、IL-3、IL-6等的釋放,刺激巨核細胞增殖,引起血小板增多,導致血小板活化增加,進而形成血栓前狀態(tài)[21-22]?;罨难“蹇舍尫哦喾N炎癥遞質,促進單核細胞的黏附和遷移,加劇炎癥反應,在動脈粥樣硬化的起始和發(fā)展過程中起到關鍵作用,同時在內皮損傷及斑塊破壞的環(huán)境下加速動脈粥樣斑塊的不穩(wěn)定性及血栓的形成[7]。另一方面,淋巴細胞反映的是一種靜止的且可控的炎癥通路[7]。炎癥增加淋巴細胞的凋亡[23],引起淋巴細胞計數(shù)減少;同時,心肌缺血時,機體處于生理壓力及應激狀態(tài),導致皮質醇及兒茶酚胺等激素水平增高也可引起淋巴細胞計數(shù)的減少[24]。因此,PLR作為兩種炎性因子的組合,既反映了炎癥反應,又反映了血栓形成過程,該指標被認為是一種重要的血液炎癥反應標志物。而NLR、PLR因容易獲得且檢測價格便宜,在評估ACS病人冠狀動脈病變程度和預測MACE方面的臨床價值,已受到人們越來越多的關注[25]。
國內外大量的研究顯示,NLR、PLR與冠狀動脈狹窄程度及ACS的預后顯著相關。KURTUL等[21]對1 016例經(jīng)CAG確診的ACS病人研究發(fā)現(xiàn),高PLR病人的冠狀動脈SYNTAX評分更高,提示PLR與冠狀動脈粥樣硬化的嚴重程度及復雜
SAHIN等[29]研究結果表明,根據(jù)SYNTAX評分,NLR是STEMI冠狀動脈狹窄嚴重程度的獨立預測因子。與SYNTAX評分一樣,Gensini評分是評估冠心病復雜性和嚴重程度的有效的血管造影工具。CHEN等[30]研究發(fā)現(xiàn),根據(jù)Gensini評分,NLR與冠心病病人冠狀動脈狹窄嚴重程度密切相關。SAWANT等[31]對250例經(jīng)過血運重建的STEMI病人1年的隨訪發(fā)現(xiàn),NLR>7.4是預測短期(<30 d)及長期(1年)預后的一個良好的指標。GUL等[12]對診斷為NSTEMI及不穩(wěn)定型心絞痛的病人進行長達3年的隨訪,發(fā)現(xiàn)低NLR病人的3年病死率為3%,而高NLR病人的3年病死率高達21.6%,差異有統(tǒng)計學意義;NLR=3.4是NSTEMI及不穩(wěn)定型心絞痛病人3年病死率的最佳預測截斷值,表明NLR為NSTEMI及不穩(wěn)定型心絞痛病人3年病死率的獨立預測因子。AYCA等[32]對450
雖然大量研究顯示PLR與NLR對ACS預后都有一定的預測價值,但目前國內外還沒有二者對NSTE-ACS病人院內MACE的預測價值比較的研究。本文Logistic分析的結果顯示,PLR、NLR均為NSTE-ACS病人發(fā)生院內MACE的獨立預測因子。進一步通過ROC曲線等分析發(fā)現(xiàn),NLR、PLR對NSTE-ACS病人發(fā)生院內MACE預測的臨床價值比較差異無統(tǒng)計學意義,提示二者對NSTE-ACS病人發(fā)生院內MACE的預測價值相當。究其原因,NLR及PLR中都有淋巴細胞計數(shù)的存在,且都反映了NSTE-ACS的炎癥狀態(tài),故NLR與PLR并不是各自獨立的,具有一定相關性。
綜上所述,PLR與NLR均為NSTE-ACS病人發(fā)生院內MACE的獨立預測因子,而且二者對院內MACE的預測價值相當。本研究還有一些不足之處。首先,本文研究為單中心、回顧性研究;其次,研究人群樣本數(shù)量較少,發(fā)生院內MACE病人較少,今后需擴大樣本量進一步研究。
[參考文獻]
[1] 中華醫(yī)學會心血管病學分會. 非ST段抬高型急性冠狀動脈綜合征診斷和治療指南(2016)[J]. 中華心血管病雜志, 2017,45(5):359-376.
[2] DINIZ L R, DE LIMA S G, DE AMORIM GARCIA J M, et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic predictor in older people with acute coronary syndrome[J]. Angiology, 2019,70(3):264-271.
[3] DENTALI F, NIGRO O, SQUIZZATO A, et al. Impact of neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio on major clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature[J]. International Journal of Cardiology, 2018,266:31-37.
[4] CHOI D H, KOBAYASHI Y, NISHI T, et al. Combination of mean platelet volume and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts long-term major adverse cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Angiology, 2019,70(4):345-351.
[5] 王陽,賈淑杰,池喆. 中性粒細胞/淋巴細胞比值與非ST段抬高急性冠脈綜合征患者危險分層及預后的相關性[J]. 中華醫(yī)學雜志, 2017,97(23):1784-1789.
[6] ANWAR W I, WIJAYA I P. Diagnostic accuracy of platelet/lymphocyte ratio for screening complex coronary lesion in different age group of patients with acute coronary syndrome[J]. Acta Medica Indonesiana, 2018,50(3):185-192.
[7] LEE Y S, BARADI A, PEVERELLE M, et al. Usefulness of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte ratio to predict long-term all-cause mortality in patients at high risk of coronary artery disease who underwent coronary angiography[J]. American Journal of Cardiology, 2018,121(9):1021-1026.
[8] MARINI A, NAKA K K, VAKALIS K, et al. Extent of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing angiography for stable or acute coronary syndromes[J]. Hellenic Journal of Car-diology, 2017,58(2):115-121.
[9] BOB-MANUEL T, IFEDILI I, REED G A, et al. Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: a comprehensive review[J]. Current Problems in Cardiology, 2017,42(9):266-305.
[10] BALTA S, OZTURK C, BALTA I, et al. The Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio and inflammation[J]. Angiology, 2016,67(3):298-299.
[11] AKBOGA M K, CANPOLAT U, YAYLA C, et al. Association of platelet to lymphocyte ratio with inflammation and severity of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with stable coronary artery disease[J]. Angiology, 2016,67(1):89-95.
[12] GUL M, UYAREL H, ERGELEN M, et al. Predictive value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in clinical outcomes of Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina pectoris a 3-year follow-up[J]. Clinical and Applied Thrombosis-Hemostasis, 2014,20(4):378-384.
[13] TASKESEN T, SEKHON H, WROBLEWSKI I, et al. Usefulness of mean platelet volume to predict significant coronary artery disease in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes[J]. The American Journal of Cardiology, 2017,119(2):192-196.
[14] FANG L, MOORE X L, DART A M, et al. Systemic inflammatory response following acute myocardial infarction[J]. Journal of Geriatric Cardiology: JGC, 2015,12(3):305-312.
[15] KRENN-PILKO S, LANGSENLEHNER U, THURNER E M, et al. The elevated preoperative platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts poor prognosis in breast cancer patients[J]. British Journal of Cancer, 2014,110(10):2524-2530.
[16] TEMPLETON A J, ACE O, MCNAMARA M G, et al. Prognostic role of platelet to lymphocyte ratio in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention: a Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2014,23(7):1204-1212.
[17] ACAR G, KALKAN M E, AVCI A, et al. The relation of Platelet-Lymphocyte ratio and coronary collateral circulation in patients with stable angina pectoris and chronic total occlusion[J]. Clinical and Applied Thrombosis-Hemostasis, 2015,21(5):462-468.
[18] SUNBUL M, GERIN F, DURMUS E, et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte and platelet to lymphocyte ratio in patients with dipper versus non-dipper hypertension[J]. Clinical and Experimental Hypertension (New York, N.Y.:1993), 2014,36(4):217-221.
[19] GARY T, PICHLER M, BELAJ K, et al. Platelet-to-Lymphocyte ratio: a novel marker for critical limb ischemia in peripheral arterial occlusive disease patients[J]. PLoS One, 2013,8(7): e67688.
[20] KUNDI H. The role of platelet-lymphocyte ratio in the severity of coronary artery disease assessed by the angiographic Gensini score[J]. Anatolian Journal of Cardiology, 2016,16(3):224.
[21] KURTUL A, MURAT S N, YARLIOGLUES M A, et al. Association of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte ratio with severity and complexity of coronary artery disease in patients with acute coronary syndromes[J]. American Journal of Cardiology, 2014,114(7):972-978.
[22] WU Y H, WU H, MUELLER C, et al. Baseline platelet count and clinical outcome in acute coronary syndrome[J]. Circulation Journal, 2012,76(3):704-711.
[23] HOTCHKISS R S, KARL I E. The pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis[J]. New England Journal of Medicine, 2003,348(2):138-150.
[24] LI Hui, ZHOU Yun, MA Yan, et al. The prognostic value of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Kardiologia Polska, 2017,75(7):665-672.
[25] WANG Xuedong, XIE Zulong, LIU Xinxin, et al. Association of platelet to lymphocyte ratio with non-culprit atherosclerotic plaque vulnerability in patients with acute coronary syndrome: an optical coherence tomography study[J]. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 2017,17(1):175-180.
[26] CETIN E H, CETIN M S, ARAS D A, et al. Platelet to lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic marker of in-hospital and long-term major adverse cardiovascular events in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction[J]. Angiology, 2016,67(4):336-345.
[27] AZAB B, SHAH N, AKERMAN M, et al. Value of platelet/lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of all-cause mortality after non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction[J]. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 2012,34(3):326-334.
[28] OYLUMLU M, YILDIZ A, OYLUMLU M, et al. Platelet to lymphocyte ratio is a predictor of in-hospital mortality patients with acute coronary syndrome[J]. European Heart Journal, 2014,35(1):648-659.
[29] SAHIN D Y, ELBASAN Z, GR M, et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio is associated with the severity of coronary artery disease in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction[J]. Angiology, 2013,64(6):423-429.
[30] CHEN Juan, CHEN Manhua, LI Sha, et al. Usefulness of the Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte ratio in predicting the severity of coronary artery disease: a gensini score assessment[J]. Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis, 2014,21(12):1271-1282.
[31] SAWANT A C, ADHIKARI P, NARRA S R, et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts short-and long-term mortality following revascularization therapy for ST elevation myocardial infarction[J]. Cardiology Journal, 2014,21(5):500-508.
[32] AYCA B, AKIN F, CELIK O, et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio is related to stent thrombosis and high mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction[J]. Angiology, 2015,66(6):545-552.
[33] CETIN M, KIZILTUNC E, ELALMIS O U, et al. Predictive value of neutrophil lymphocyte ratio and platelet lymphocyte ratio in patients with coronary slow flow[J]. Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2016,32:307-312.
(本文編輯 黃建鄉(xiāng))