4.3 Article

Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Improves the Predictive Power of GRACE Risk Score for Long-Term Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

期刊

CARDIOLOGY
卷 134, 期 1, 页码 39-46

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000442939

关键词

Acute coronary syndrome; GRACE risk score; Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China ('973 Project') [2012CB517804]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [91339116, 81025002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the relationship between platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and GRACE risk score and to examine whether PLR on admission can improve the predictive value of GRACE risk score for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: PLR was calculated from the platelet and lymphocyte counts from the complete blood count of 2,230 ACS patients upon admission. The GRACE risk score was also calculated. Results: Spearman's rank correlation demonstrated that GRACE risk score was positively correlated with PLR (r = 0.190, p < 0.001). After a median followup period of 58 months, multivariate Cox analysis showed that both GRACE risk score [hazard ratio (HR) 1.092, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.067-1.117, p < 0.001] and PLR (HR 1.100, 95% CI 1.088-1.112, p < 0.001) could independently predict CVD events. Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis proved that using PLR together with GRACE risk score improved the score from 0.70 (95% CI 0.67-0.73, p < 0.001) when used alone to 0.81 (95% CI 0.79-0.83, p < 0.001) for CVD events and from 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.77, p < 0.001) when used alone to 0.80 (95% CI 0.77-0.83, p < 0.001) for all-cause mortality. Conclusions: This study proves, for the first time, a positive association between GRACE risk score and PLR, and that a combination of PLR and GRACE risk score is more effective in predicting CVD events in ACS patients. (C) 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据