4.5 Article

Increased systemic immune-inflammation index can predict respiratory failure in patients with Guillain-Barre syndrome

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 1223-1231

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-021-05420-x

关键词

Guillain-Barre syndrome; Systemic immune-inflammation index; Respiratory failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) may serve as an independent prognostic indicator of respiratory failure in GBS patients, with higher predictive ability compared to other factors like neutrophil counts.
Background Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is a common peripheral neuropathy with relatively heterogenous clinical manifestations. In severe cases, it can result in disabling neuromuscular symptoms and respiratory failure. In this study, we assessed whether the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) is associated with respiratory failure in GBS patients. Methods We retrospectively analyzed clinicopathological data from GBS patients diagnosed in the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University. SII was calculated based on counts of neutrophils (N), platelets (P), and lymphocytes (L). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cutoff values for SII, N, P, and L. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to determine the ability of the SII to predict respiratory failure. Results Among the 369 GBS patients in this study, 61 (16.5%) suffered respiratory failure. Multivariate logistic regression showed that N >= 6.03 x 10(9)/l, Hughes Functional Grading Scale (HFGS) score >= 3 at admission, and SII >= 863.04 x 10(9)/l can independently predict respiratory failure in GBS patients. SII showed higher predictive ability than N, based on area under the ROC curve (0.75 vs. 0.72). Conclusion SII may be a novel independent prognostic indicator of respiratory failure in GBS patients, helping physicians identify those at risk in a timely manner.

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

4.5
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