4.7 Article

FIB-4 Index and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte-Ratio as Death Predictor in Coronary Artery Disease Patients

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11010076

关键词

fibrosis-4 index; FIB-4; neutrophil-to-lymphocyte-ratio; NLR; hepatic fibrosis; systemic inflammation; biomarkers; coronary artery disease; outcome; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) on coronary artery disease (CAD) mortality. The study found that elevated NLR and FIB-4 were associated with increased mortality in CAD patients. Categorization of CAD patients based on FIB-4/NLR could provide valuable information for risk stratification and reduction of residual risk.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)-associated liver fibrosis is likely related to coronary artery disease (CAD) by the mediation of systemic inflammation. This study aimed at evaluating the predictive value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte-ratio (NLR) and fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), indices of inflammation and fibrosis, respectively, on CAD mortality. Data from 1460 CAD patients (1151 males, age: 68 +/- 10 years, mean +/- SD) were retrospectively analyzed. Over a median follow-up of 26 months (interquartile range (IQR) 12-45), 94 deaths were recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed worse outcomes in patients with elevation of one or both biomarkers (FIB-4 > 3.25 or/and NLR > 2.04, log-rank p-value < 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, the elevation of one biomarker (NLR or FIB-4) still confers a significant independent risk for mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.7, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.1-2.7, p = 0.023), whereas an increase in both biomarkers confers a risk corresponding to HR = 3.5 (95% CI: 1.6-7.8, p = 0.002). Categorization of patients with elevated FIB-4/NLR could provide valuable information for risk stratification and reduction of residual risk in CAD patients.

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

4.7
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