4.4 Article

Dynamic Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratios Predict Short-term Prognostic Outcome of Thrombolysis in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke

期刊

NEUROTOXICITY RESEARCH
卷 39, 期 5, 页码 1678-1687

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12640-021-00382-6

关键词

Neutrophils; Lymphocytes; NLR; Thrombolysis; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that the neutrophils-lymphocytes ratios (NLRs) measured at admission and 7 days after thrombolysis treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) were associated with prognosis outcomes after 3 months. Dynamic increase in NLR within 24 hours was significantly related to good and excellent outcomes.
Aim The main purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamic changes of neutrophils-lymphocytes ratios (NLRs) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and their relationships with 3-month prognostic outcomes. Methods Two hundred ninety-one patients with AIS were included in this study, followed up for 3 months. At admission, 1 and 7 days after recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (r-tPA) injection, blood samples were obtained. Outcome events included excellent outcome, good outcome, and death defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-1, 0-2, and 6 respectively. Results NLRs measured in admission and 7 days after r-tPA treatment were associated with prognosis outcome after 3 months. Twenty-four-hour NLR is an excellent indicator in forecasting (excellent outcome's the areas under the curve (AUC) = 0.725; good outcome AUC = 0.742; death AUC = 0.759). In addition, we were surprised to find that dynamic increase in NLR within 24 h is significantly related to excellent and good outcomes. Conclusions Twenty-four-hour NLR is related to the severity of AIS and poor prognosis, which can help early risk stratification. Significance We can predict the prognosis of AIS more accurately. Compared with previous studies, our study has shown the dynamic changes of NLR and its relationship with NIHSS and multiple prognostic.

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

4.4
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