The Predictive Value of NLR, MLR, and PLR in the Outcome of End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients
by
,
Adrian Vasile Mureșan
1,2,†, 
Eliza Russu
1,2,†,
Emil Marian Arbănași
1,*,
Réka Kaller
1,*,
Ioan Hosu
3,
Eliza Mihaela Arbănași
4,‡ and
Septimiu Toader Voidăzan
5,‡ 1
Clinic of Vascular Surgery, Mureș County Emergency Hospital, 540136 Târgu Mureș, Romania
2
Department of Surgery, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Târgu Mureș, Romania
3
Department of Nephrology, Mureș County Emergency Hospital, 540136 Târgu Mureș, Romania
4
Faculty of Pharmacy, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Târgu Mureș, Romania
5
Department of Epidemiology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Târgu Mureș, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
‡
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Biomedicines 2022, 10(6), 1272; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10061272
Submission received: 14 February 2022
/
Revised: 17 May 2022
/
Accepted: 27 May 2022
/
Published: 29 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Kidney Disease: From Pathophysiology to Novel Therapeutic Approaches)
Abstract
:Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global public health problem with a high mortality rate and a rapid progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Recently, the role of inflammation and the correlation between inflammatory markers and CKD progression have been studied. This study aimed to analyze the predictive value of the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in assessing the outcome of ESKD patients. Methods: A retrospective study which included all patients admitted in the Department of Nephrology of the County Emergency Clinical Hospital, Târgu-Mureș, Romania, between January 2016 and December 2019, diagnosed with ESKD. Results: Mortality at 30 days was clearly higher in the case of the patients in the high-NLR groups (40.12% vs. 1.97%; p < 0.0001), high-MLR (32.35% vs. 4.81%; p < 0.0001), and respectively high-PLR (25.54% vs. 7.94%; p < 0.0001). There was also a significant increase in the number of hospital days and the average number of dialysis sessions in patients with high-NLR (p < 0.0001), high-MLR (p < 0.0001), and high-PLR (p < 0.0001). The multivariate analysis showed that a high baseline value for NLR (p < 0.0001), MLR (p < 0.0001), and PLR (p < 0.0001) was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality for all recruited patients. Conclusions: Our findings established that NLR, MLR, and PLR determined at hospital admission had a strong predictive capacity of all-cause 30-day mortality in ESKD patients who required RRT for at least 6 months. Elevated values of the ratios were also associated with longer hospital stays and more dialysis sessions per patient.
1. Introduction
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has become a global public health problem, with rising incidence, high costs, and a high morbidity and mortality rate [1]. According to World Health Organization reports, chronic kidney disease ranks 10th in the world as a cause of death, with 1.3 million deaths reported by 2019 and a significant increase in the last 20 years. In 2000, only 813,000 deaths were reported, and kidney disease ranked 13th worldwide as a cause of death [2].
At the European level, according to reports made by the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA), in 2019, the incidence of patients accepted for Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) was 132 per million population (pmp). In Romania, in the same period, an incidence of 191 pmp was registered, our country thus occupying seventh place at the European level [3]. At the national level, until 31 December 2020, 13,663 patients were registered for RRT, out of which 13,374 were on hemodialysis, and only 289 were on peritoneal dialysis [4]. The most stable site of dialysis with a long-life expectancy are arteriovenous fistula (AVF) [5], whereas acute ill patients need central venous hemodialysis catheter (CVC) dialysis.
Chronic kidney disease is defined as the presence of renal injury or a decrease of at least three months in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. It is classified according to the glomerular filtration rate in five stages. The last stage of chronic kidney disease (ESKD) occurs at a GFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 and requires RRT [6]. Numerous factors are involved in the degradation of renal function and implicitly in the evolution of CKD, such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, old age, and male sex [7,8,9]. Recently, the role of inflammation and the correlation between inflammatory markers and CKD progression have been studied [10,11,12].
One of the most statistically significant inflammatory biomarkers in many fields is the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio, whose prognostic role has been demonstrated in cardiovascular disease, vascular and oncological surgery (especially gastric, colorectal, prostate, ovarian), and neurology [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].
Numerous studies have recently aimed to analyze the correlation between neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) values and the progression of patients with CKD in the initial stages. In the article published by Yuan et al., a prospective study was performed in which 938 patients diagnosed with CKD stages I–IV were included. It was found that the group of patients with NLR ≥ 2.09 had a statistically significant number of progressions to ESKD (92 vs. 31, p < 0.0001) [29].
This study aimed to analyze the predictive value of the NLR, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and also the outcome of patients with ESKD requiring RRT for at least 6 months, admitted in the Nephrology Department of the Târgu-Mureș County Emergency Clinical Hospital, Romania, between January 2016 and December 2019.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
This is a retrospective study which included all patients admitted in the Department of Nephrology of the County Emergency Clinical Hospital, Târgu-Mureș, Romania, between January 2016 and December 2019, diagnosed with ESKD, who required RRT for at least 6 months and who had RRT performed via an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or through a central venous hemodialysis catheter (CVC). Exclusion criteria were CKD stages I–IV, ESKD and peritoneal dialysis, patients diagnosed with systemic inflammatory disease, recent tumor status, hematological disease, personal history of major surgery in the last 6 months, and autoimmune diseases. The patients included in the study were initially divided into two groups based on the poor outcome: patients who survived and those who died. Subsequently, the 30-day death rate, the number of hospital days, and the number of dialysis treatments for each patient were determined based on the ideal cut-off value for NLR, MLR, and PLR versus mortality. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify the optimal cut-off values of NLR and PLR according to the Youden index (Youden Index = Sensitivity + Specificity − 1, range from 0 to 1).
2.2. Data Collection
From the hospital’s electronic database, the patients’ demographic data were extracted, along with the number of days of hospitalization, the number of dialysis sessions performed during admission, and the type of vascular access for dialysis. The following comorbidities were extracted from the medical history: arterial hypertension (AH), atrial fibrillation (AF), chronic heart failure (CHF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), myocardial infarction (MI), type 2 diabetes (T2D), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), peripheral artery disease (PAD), dyslipidemia, tobacco usage, and obesity. In the first 24 h after admission, each patient was given a complete set of blood tests (glucose level, hemoglobin, hematocrit, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, platelet count, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and potassium). The neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of neutrophils by the total number of lymphocytes.
2.3. Study Outcomes
The primary endpoint was verifying the predictive role of NLR, MLR, and PLR for mortality at 30 days in the case of ESKD patients who were on hemodialysis for at least 6 months. The secondary was the 30-day mortality rate for the patients who had hemodialysis performed via an AVF, respectively, those who had it performed via a CVC. Additionally, the number of hospital days and the number of dialysis sessions per patient were calculated for all the patients, respectively, for the analyzed subclasses.
2.4. Ethical Approval
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Târgu-Mureș Emergency County Hospital, Romania (protocol code 29290, on 10 November 2021). All patients enrolled in the study gave their informed written consent to be included in the present analysis.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for Windows version 28.0.1.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The associations of NLR, MLR, PLR with category variables were assessed using chi-square tests, while differences in continuous variables were analyzed using t-Student or Mann Whitney tests. The receiver–operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to test the predictive power and to determine cut-off values of NLR, MLR, and PLR. All tests were two-tailed tests and a p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
3. Results
During the study period, 1703 patients with CKD were admitted. Of these, 987 patients were CKD stage I-IV, 143 were ESKD with less than 6 months of RRT, 51 patients with PD, 21 had tumoral status, 25 had autoimmune or hematological diseases, and 15 had major surgery in the previous 6 months. Four hundred sixty-one patients with ESKD who met all the criteria were included in the study (Figure 1).
For the whole group, there was an average age of 64.36 ± 12.14, with ages between 19 and 98 years, and a predominance of males (60.52%). Of the group, 191 patients (41.43%) underwent dialysis via an AVF, and 270 (58.57%) through a dialysis CVC. The comorbidities with the highest incidence were AH in 388 patients (84.16%), followed by IHD in 303 patients (65.72%), and CHF in 213 patients (46.2%). As risk factors, dyslipidemia was encountered in 217 patients (47.07%), tobacco usage in 199 patients (43.16%), and obesity in 139 patients (30.15%). Regarding the number of days of admission, an average of six days of hospitalization and four dialysis sessions per patient were observed. At 30 days, there was a mortality rate of 14.96% (Table 1).
Depending on the mortality at 30 days, the patients were divided into two groups. The first group included those with a positive outcome at 30 days, and in the second group were patients with poor outcomes at 30 days. Distribution by sex, mean age, comorbidities, type of vascular access, and laboratory data are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
Significant differences were found in the average age of the patients, with a higher value in patients with poor outcomes (68.82 vs. 63.58; p = 0.001). Regarding comorbidities, patients with poor outcomes have a higher incidence of AF (34.78% vs. 18.11%; p = 0.002), MI (40.57% vs. 17.6%; p < 0.0001) and CVA (36.23% vs. 23.46% p = 0.02). Among the risk factors, smoking has a higher incidence in patients with poor outcomes (66.67% vs. 39.03%; p < 0.0001). In addition, in the case of patients with a positive outcome, we have a higher incidence of AH (86.98% vs. 68.11%; p = 0.0001).
Regarding the laboratory data, in the group with poor outcomes, we found an almost double average value of the total number of neutrophils (11.29 vs. 6.45; p < 0.0001), a lower average value of the total number of lymphocytes (0.62 vs. 1.31; p < 0.0001) and of the total platelet count (PLT) (172 vs. 216.95; p < 0.0001) were found. Moreover, a higher average value of NLR (p < 0.0001), MLR (p < 0.0001), and PLR (p < 0.0001) was recorded in patients with poor outcomes.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of NLR, MLR, and PLR were created to determine whether the baseline of these biomarkers was predictive for mortality in all patients, mortality in AVF patients, and mortality in CVC patients (Figure 2). The optimal cut-off obtained from Youden’s index, areas under the curve (AUC), and the predictive accuracy of inflammatory markers are listed in Table 4.
Depending on the optimal cut-off value, according to ROC, for NLR (8.19), MLR (0.63), and PLR (199.05), the patients included in the study were divided into two groups, and the outcome was studied. Mortality at 30 days was clearly higher in the case of the patients in the high-NLR groups (40.12% vs. 1.97%; p < 0.0001), high-MLR (32.35% vs. 4.81%; p < 0.0001), and respectively high-PLR (25.54% vs. 7.94%; p < 0.0001). There was also a significant increase in the number of hospital days and the average number of dialysis sessions in patients with high-NLR (p < 0.0001), high-MLR (p < 0.0001), and high-PLR (p < 0.0001). (Table 5).
The multivariate analysis showed that a high baseline value for NLR, MLR, and PLR was an independent predictor of 30 days mortality for all recruited patients. Furthermore, for all hospitalized patients AF, MI, and tobacco use was an independent predictor of short time mortality. In terms of type of vascular access, AVF acted as a protective factor against mortality. However, CVC was an independent predictor of mortality (Table 6).
4. Discussion
This study included 461 patients. A comprehensive study was carried out to determine the predictive role of NLR, MLR, and PLR values in assessing the poor outcome of patients with ESKD who had been on hemodialysis for at least 6 months. It turned out that all three factors had an independent role in predicting mortality at 30 days, the highest accuracy belonging to NLR, with a sensitivity of 91.3% and a specificity of 76%, and an AUC of 0.897. In addition, the predictability of inflammatory biomarkers was validated by the 30-day mortality in patients undergoing dialysis via an AVF and by the 30-day mortality in patients with a CVC. All three ratios proved to have a predictive role in these cases, with NLR having the greatest accuracy.
The pro-inflammatory role of neutrophils and lymphocytes in immune system regulation is well known [30,31]. Systemic inflammation has been associated with increases in lymphocyte apoptosis [32], as well as an increased risk of infection [33] and unfavorable cardiovascular events [34]. Elevated NLR values are based on increased neutrophil counts and decreased lymphocyte counts and reflect the balance between systemic inflammation and immune response. In addition to their known hemostatic role, platelets play an essential role in the inflammatory process and immunological responses [35,36,37].
NLR and MLR are measures of acute myeloid-driven innate immune responses reported to chronic, lymphocyte-driven, immunological memory reflected by lymphocyte numbers. An increased MLR and NLR may reflect an immunological imbalance between a potential ongoing clinical or sub-clinical acute inflammation and an impaired immune defense against pathogens.
The paper published by Reddan et al., which included 25,661 hemodialysis patients from 1998 facilities for chronic dialysis, highlighted the negative outcome of high neutrophil counts and low lymphocytes counts [38]. As shown in Table 3, the group of patients with a poor outcome had a significant increase in the number of neutrophils (11.29 vs. 6.45; p < 0.0001), respectively a decrease in the number of lymphocytes (0.62 vs. 1.31; p < 0.0001) and platelets (172 vs. 216.95; p < 0.0001). Regarding the ratios, in the case of deceased patients, there was an increased average value for NLR (17.91 vs. 4.63; p < 0.0001), MLR (1 vs. 0.45; p < 0.0001), and PLR (273.25 vs. 163.57; p < 0.0001).
CKD is a global public health problem with a high mortality rate and a rapid progression to ESKD. In the study by Kim et al., the mortality rate in patients with CKD (63.9%) was higher than in the group of patients with AH or T2D (24.9%) or in the control group (20.8%) [39]. The establishment of the predictive role of the biomarkers for both the progression of CKD and the negative outcome is an intensely discussed topic in recent years’ literature. High NLR and PLR values have been associated with the evolution of CKD towards ESKD and with a high mortality rate in numerous studies [29,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47].
The predictive role of NLR on the mortality of ESKD patients on dialysis has been demonstrated in several recently published papers [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Some of these papers compared the values of NLR and PLR. Thus, Catabay et al. conducted a study that included 108 548 patients and reported the connection between high NLR values and high mortality rates, compared to PLR values [48]. Yoshitomi et al. demonstrated that a high NLR was associated with poor renal outcome (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.02–2.77) in 350 patients with stage I-IV CKD [49]. Similarly, the article published by Zhang et al. showed the association of high NLR values with all causes of mortality. In contrast, high PLR values are a predictive factor for cardiovascular mortality [44]. In the paper published by Xiang et al., which included 355 patients on dialysis for at least 6 months, high MLR values were found to be independent factors of adverse prognosis [56].
Regarding the predictive role of PLR, Yaprak et al. demonstrated the superiority of PLR’s capacity to predict mortality compared to NLR in the adjusted model [57]. Moreover, the recent paper of Brito et al. showed that the PLR, but not the NLR, was positively correlated with hs-CRP in nondialysis CKD patients (p = 0.015) [47]. Furthermore, in the meta-analysis published by Ao et al., showed that a high NLR is related to all-cause mortality (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.87–2.00; p < 0.0001), and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18–1.79; p < 0.001) in 116,709 patients with CKD [58]. Additionally, similarly to the previously meta-analysis, Zhao et al., demonstrated that a high NLR predict all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in 1442 patients with CKD [59].
The discovery and validation of these predictive biomarkers on the negative outcome of these frail hemodialysis patients is a critical point in improving their quality of life and increasing their life expectancy. According to the results of this study and the recent literature, the values of NLR, MLR, and PLR are independent factors in predicting the negative outcome of patients with ESKD.
To our knowledge, following the search in the leading medical databases (PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science), this study is the first to verify the association between high values of NLR, MLR, and PLR and the mortality rate, hospital stay and number of dialysis sessions of patients on hemodialysis for at least 6 months.
Our study has some limitations, including the retrospective approach, with a limited number of patients from a single center. Carrying out a prospective, randomized study, including a control group and monitoring the long-term outcome is recommended in the future. Another limitation is excluding patients with peritoneal dialysis, the group of patients with the highest risk of adverse events, in order to achieve uniformity in methodology, and avoid questionable results. Moreover, we could not adjust the models to the immunosuppression timing, bone marrow status, other medication, day of dialysis, sampling site, the potential presence of infection, or bone marrow status. Unfortunately, data on these parameters, which might have influenced the blood cell analysis and outcome, were not available from this cohort.
5. Conclusions
Our findings established that NLR, MLR, and PLR determined at hospital admission had a strong predictive capacity of all-cause 30-day mortality in ESKD patients who required RRT for at least 6 months. Elevated values of the ratios were also associated with longer hospital stays and more dialysis sessions per patient. Given the accessibility and low cost of the ratios, future research should investigate means to reduce these biomarkers values, in order to improve these patients’ outcome and quality of life.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation and methodology, E.R. and A.V.M.; software and data curation, E.M.A. (Emil Marian Arbănași); validation, all authors; formal analysis, investigation, resources, R.K. and I.H.; writing—review and editing, visualization, S.T.V. and E.M.A. (Eliza Mihaela Arbănași). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Târgu-Mureș Emergency County Hospital, Romania (protocol code 29290, on 10 November 2021).
Informed Consent Statement
All patients enrolled in the study gave their informed written consent to be included in the present analysis.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
This paper was published with the support of the University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology “George Emil Palade” of Târgu-Mureș.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Eknoyan, G.; Lameire, N.; Barsoum, R.; Eckardt, K.-U.; Levin, A.; Levin, N.; Locatelli, F.; Macleod, A.; Vanholder, R.; Walker, R.; et al. The Burden of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes. Kidney Int. 2004, 66, 1310–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- The Top 10 Causes of Death. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- Boenink, R.; Astley, M.E.; Huijben, J.A.; Stel, V.S.; Kerschbaum, J.; Rosenberg-Ots, M.; Åsberg, A.A.; Lopot, F.; Golan, E.; Castro de la Nuez, P.; et al. The ERA Registry Annual Report 2019: Summary and Age Comparisons. Clin. Kidney J. 2021, 15, 452–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raportul Registrului Renal Român 2019–2020. Available online: http://registrulrenal.ro/resurse_statistica/Raport_RRR_2019_2020.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- Kaller, R.; Mureșan, A.V.; Arbănași, E.M.; Arbănași, E.M.; Kovács, I.; Horváth, E.; Suciu, B.A.; Hosu, I.; Russu, E. Uncommon Surgical Management by AVF between the Great Saphenous Vein and Anterior Tibial Artery for Old Radiocephalic AVF Failure. Life 2022, 12, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Kidney Foundation K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease: Evaluation, Classification, and Stratification. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2002, 39, S1–S266.
- Wen, C.P.; Cheng, T.Y.D.; Tsai, M.K.; Chang, Y.C.; Chan, H.T.; Tsai, S.P.; Chiang, P.H.; Hsu, C.C.; Sung, P.K.; Hsu, Y.H.; et al. All-Cause Mortality Attributable to Chronic Kidney Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study Based on 462,293 Adults in Taiwan. Lancet 2008, 371, 2173–2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, C.S.; Larson, M.G.; Leip, E.P.; Culleton, B.; Wilson, P.W.F.; Levy, D. Predictors of New-Onset Kidney Disease in a Community-Based Population. JAMA 2004, 291, 844–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, R.; Zhang, L.-X.; Zhang, P.-H.; Wang, F.; Zuo, L.; Wang, H.-Y. Gender Differences in Age-Related Decline in Glomerular Filtration Rates in Healthy People and Chronic Kidney Disease Patients. BMC Nephrol. 2010, 11, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Imig, J.D.; Ryan, M.J. Immune and Inflammatory Role in Renal Disease. Compr. Physiol. 2013, 3, 957–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tonelli, M.; Sacks, F.; Pfeffer, M.; Jhangri, G.S.; Curhan, G. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) Trial Investigators Biomarkers of Inflammation and Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int. 2005, 68, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsai, Y.-C.; Hung, C.-C.; Kuo, M.-C.; Tsai, J.-C.; Yeh, S.-M.; Hwang, S.-J.; Chiu, Y.-W.; Kuo, H.-T.; Chang, J.-M.; Chen, H.-C. Association of HsCRP, White Blood Cell Count and Ferritin with Renal Outcome in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e52775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tamhane, U.U.; Aneja, S.; Montgomery, D.; Rogers, E.-K.; Eagle, K.A.; Gurm, H.S. Association between Admission Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Outcomes in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome. Am. J. Cardiol. 2008, 102, 653–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Erturk, M.; Cakmak, H.A.; Surgit, O.; Celik, O.; Aksu, H.U.; Akgul, O.; Gurdogan, M.; Bulut, U.; Ozalp, B.; Akbay, E.; et al. Predictive Value of Elevated Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio for Long-Term Cardiovascular Mortality in Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease. J. Cardiol. 2014, 64, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Park, J.-S.; Seo, K.-W.; Choi, B.-J.; Choi, S.-Y.; Yoon, M.-H.; Hwang, G.-S.; Tahk, S.-J.; Shin, J.-H. Importance of Prognostic Value of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Medicine 2018, 97, e13471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhat, T.; Teli, S.; Rijal, J.; Bhat, H.; Raza, M.; Khoueiry, G.; Meghani, M.; Akhtar, M.; Costantino, T. Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Review. Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 2013, 11, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vazquez-Garza, E.; Jerjes-Sanchez, C.; Navarrete, A.; Joya-Harrison, J.; Rodriguez, D. Venous Thromboembolism: Thrombosis, Inflammation, and Immunothrombosis for Clinicians. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 2017, 44, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Galliazzo, S.; Nigro, O.; Bertù, L.; Guasti, L.; Grandi, A.M.; Ageno, W.; Dentali, F. Prognostic Role of Neutrophils to Lymphocytes Ratio in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature. Intern. Emerg. Med. 2018, 13, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Templeton, A.J.; McNamara, M.G.; Šeruga, B.; Vera-Badillo, F.E.; Aneja, P.; Ocaña, A.; Leibowitz-Amit, R.; Sonpavde, G.; Knox, J.J.; Tran, B.; et al. Prognostic Role of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2014, 106, dju124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, M.-X.; Liu, X.-M.; Zhang, X.-F.; Zhang, J.-F.; Wang, W.-L.; Zhu, Y.; Dong, J.; Cheng, J.-W.; Liu, Z.-W.; Ma, L.; et al. Prognostic Role of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Cancer 2014, 134, 2403–2413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ethier, J.-L.; Desautels, D.; Templeton, A.; Shah, P.S.; Amir, E. Prognostic Role of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Breast Cancer Res. 2017, 19, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, Q.-T.; Yang, Y.; Xu, S.; Zhang, X.-P.; Wang, H.-E.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Z.-K.; Yuan, Z.; Duan, G.-C. Prognostic Role of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio in Lung Cancers: A Meta-Analysis Including 7054 Patients. OncoTargets Ther. 2015, 8, 2731–2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Takenaka, Y.; Oya, R.; Kitamiura, T.; Ashida, N.; Shimizu, K.; Takemura, K.; Yamamoto, Y.; Uno, A. Prognostic Role of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Head and Neck Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Head Neck 2018, 40, 647–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yin, X.; Xiao, Y.; Li, F.; Qi, S.; Yin, Z.; Gao, J. Prognostic Role of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Prostate Cancer. Medicine 2016, 95, e2544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, G.; Zhu, L.; Yang, Y.; Long, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, Y. Prognostic Role of Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio in Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2018, 17, 1533033818791500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, J.; Ren, Q.; Song, Y.; He, M.; Zeng, Y.; Liu, Z.; Xu, J. Prognostic Role of Neutrophil–Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke. Medicine 2017, 96, e8624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Russu, E.; Mureșan, A.V.; Arbănași, E.M.; Kaller, R.; Hosu, I.; Voidăzan, S.; Arbănași, E.M.; Coșarcă, C.M. The Predictive Role of NLR and PLR in Outcome and Patency of Lower Limb Revascularization in Patients with Femoropopliteal Disease. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szor, D.J.; Dias, A.R.; Pereira, M.A.; Ramos, M.F.K.P.; Zilberstein, B.; Cecconello, I.; Ribeiro-Júnior, U. Prognostic Role of Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio in Resected Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinics 2018, 73, e360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, Q.; Wang, J.; Peng, Z.; Zhou, Q.; Xiao, X.; Xie, Y.; Wang, W.; Huang, L.; Tang, W.; Sun, D.; et al. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Incident End-Stage Renal Disease in Chinese Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: Results from the Chinese Cohort Study of Chronic Kidney Disease (C-STRIDE). J. Transl. Med. 2019, 17, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- MacIsaac, R.J.; Ekinci, E.I.; Jerums, G. Markers of and Risk Factors for the Development and Progression of Diabetic Kidney Disease. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2014, 63, S39–S62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soehnlein, O. Multiple Roles for Neutrophils in Atherosclerosis. Circ. Res. 2012, 110, 875–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hotchkiss, R.S.; Karl, I.E. The Pathophysiology and Treatment of Sepsis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, Z.; Fu, Z.; Huang, W.; Huang, K. Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 38, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Balta, S.; Celik, T.; Mikhailidis, D.P.; Ozturk, C.; Demirkol, S.; Aparci, M.; Iyisoy, A. The Relation Between Atherosclerosis and the Neutrophil–Lymphocyte Ratio. Clin. Appl. Thromb. 2016, 22, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cognasse, F.; Garraud, O.; Pozzetto, B.; Laradi, S.; Hamzeh-Cognasse, H. How Can Non-Nucleated Platelets Be so Smart? J. Thromb. Haemost. 2016, 14, 794–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sut, C.; Tariket, S.; Aubron, C.; Aloui, C.; Hamzeh-Cognasse, H.; Berthelot, P.; Laradi, S.; Greinacher, A.; Garraud, O.; Cognasse, F. The Non-Hemostatic Aspects of Transfused Platelets. Front. Med. 2018, 5, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, S.-J.; Davis, R.P.; Jenne, C.N. Platelets as Modulators of Inflammation. Semin. Thromb. Hemost. 2018, 44, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddan, D.N.; Klassen, P.S.; Szczech, L.A.; Coladonato, J.A.; O’Shea, S.; Owen, W.F.; Lowrie, E.G. White Blood Cells as a Novel Mortality Predictor in Haemodialysis Patients. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2003, 18, 1167–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.M.; Oh, H.J.; Choi, H.Y.; Lee, H.; Ryu, D.-R. Impact of Chronic Kidney Disease on Mortality: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Kidney Res. Clin. Pract. 2019, 38, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Altunoren, O.; Akkus, G.; Sezal, D.T.; Ciftcioglu, M.; Guzel, F.B.; Isiktas, S.; Torun, G.I.; Uyan, M.; Sokmen, M.F.; Sevim, H.A.; et al. Does Neutrophyl to Lymphocyte Ratio Really Predict Chronic Kidney Disease Progression? Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2019, 51, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solak, Y.; Yilmaz, M.I.; Sonmez, A.; Saglam, M.; Cakir, E.; Unal, H.U.; Gok, M.; Caglar, K.; Oguz, Y.; Yenicesu, M.; et al. Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio Independently Predicts Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. Clin. Exp. Nephrol. 2013, 17, 532–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kato, S.; Abe, T.; Lindholm, B.; Maruyama, S. Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio: A Promising Prognostic Marker in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. Inflamm. Cell Signal. 2015, 2, 132–137. [Google Scholar]
- Woziwodzka, K.; Dziewierz, A.; Pawica, M.; Panek, A.; Krzanowski, M.; Gołasa, P.; Latacz, P.; Burkat, M.; Kuźniewski, M.; Krzanowska, K. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Long-Term All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 5. Folia Med. Cracov. 2019, 59, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, J.; Lu, X.; Wang, S.; Li, H. High Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Are Associated with Poor Survival in Patients with Hemodialysis. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, e9958081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Umeres-Francia, G.; Rojas-Fernández, M.; Añazco, P.H.; Benites-Zapata, V. Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio as a Risk Factor for Mortality in Peruvian Adults with Chronic Kidney Disease. Authorea 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, S.; Sun, L.; Zhang, C.; Wu, L.; Nie, G.; Huang, Z.; Xing, C.; Zhang, B.; Yuan, Y. Association of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio with Kidney Clinicopathologic Features and Renal Outcomes in Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2021, 93, 107413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brito, G.M.C.; Fontenele, A.M.M.; Carneiro, E.C.R.L.; Nogueira, I.A.L.; Cavalcante, T.B.; Vale, A.A.M.; Monteiro, S.C.M.; Salgado Filho, N. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratios in Nondialysis Chronic Kidney Patients. Int. J. Inflamm. 2021, 2021, e6678960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Catabay, C.; Obi, Y.; Streja, E.; Soohoo, M.; Park, C.; Rhee, C.M.; Kovesdy, C.P.; Hamano, T.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K. Lymphocyte Cell Ratios and Mortality among Incident Hemodialysis Patients. Am. J. Nephrol. 2017, 46, 408–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoshitomi, R.; Nakayama, M.; Sakoh, T.; Fukui, A.; Katafuchi, E.; Seki, M.; Tsuda, S.; Nakano, T.; Tsuruya, K.; Kitazono, T. High Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio Is Associated with Poor Renal Outcomes in Japanese Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. Ren. Fail. 2019, 41, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neuen, B.L.; Leather, N.; Greenwood, A.M.; Gunnarsson, R.; Cho, Y.; Mantha, M.L. Neutrophil–Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients. Ren. Fail. 2016, 38, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, X.; Wang, S.; Zhang, G.; Xiong, R.; Li, H. High Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Is a Significant Predictor of Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis. Kidney Blood Press. Res. 2018, 43, 490–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Nie, Y.; Guo, M.; Wang, L.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, X.; Ding, X.; Xu, X.; Ji, J. Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio as a Predictor of Long-Term Outcome in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A 5-Year Cohort Study. Blood Purif. 2021, 50, 772–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdem, E.; Kaya, C.; Karataş, A.; Dilek, M.; Akpolat, T. Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio in Predicting Short-Term Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients. J. Exp. Clin. Med. 2013, 30, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- An, X.; Mao, H.-P.; Wei, X.; Chen, J.-H.; Yang, X.; Li, Z.-B.; Yu, X.-Q.; Li, Z.-J. Elevated Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Overall and Cardiovascular Mortality in Maintenance Peritoneal Dialysis Patients. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2012, 44, 1521–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, X.; Li, G.; Li, S.; Gong, Z.; Liu, J.; Song, S. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio and Red Blood Cell Distribution Width-to-platelet Ratio Predict Cardiovascular Events in Hemodialysis Patients. Exp. Ther. Med. 2020, 20, 1105–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiang, F.; Chen, R.; Cao, X.; Shen, B.; Liu, Z.; Tan, X.; Ding, X.; Zou, J. Monocyte/Lymphocyte Ratio as a Better Predictor of Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study. Hemodial. Int. Int. Symp. Home Hemodial. 2018, 22, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaprak, M.; Turan, M.N.; Dayanan, R.; Akın, S.; Değirmen, E.; Yıldırım, M.; Turgut, F. Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Mortality Better than Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Hemodialysis Patients. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2016, 48, 1343–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ao, G.; Wang, Y.; Qi, X.; Wang, F.; Wen, H. Association of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Risk of Cardiovascular or All-Cause Mortality in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Meta-Analysis. Clin. Exp. Nephrol. 2021, 25, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, W.-M.; Tao, S.-M.; Liu, G.-L. Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Relation to the Risk of All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ren. Fail. 2020, 42, 1059–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Enrollment flowchart.
Figure 2.
ROC curve analysis (A) for NLR concerning the mortality rate in all patients (AUC = 0.897; p < 0.0001), (B) for MLR concerning mortality in all patients (AUC = 0.792; p < 0.0001), (C) for PLR concerning mortality rate in all patients (AUC = 0.692; p < 0.0001), (D) for NLR concerning mortality in AVF patients (AUC = 0.837; p < 0.0001), (E) for MLR concerning mortality in AVF patients (AUC = 0.753; p = 0.001), (F) for PLR concerning mortality in AVF patients (AUC = 0.709; p = 0.008), (G) for NLR concerning the mortality rate in CVC patients (AUC = 0.887; p < 0.0001), (H) for MLR concerning the mortality rate in CVC patients (AUC = 0.783; p < 0.0001), (I) for PLR concerning the mortality rate in CVC patients (AUC = 0.674; p < 0.0001).
Figure 2.
ROC curve analysis (A) for NLR concerning the mortality rate in all patients (AUC = 0.897; p < 0.0001), (B) for MLR concerning mortality in all patients (AUC = 0.792; p < 0.0001), (C) for PLR concerning mortality rate in all patients (AUC = 0.692; p < 0.0001), (D) for NLR concerning mortality in AVF patients (AUC = 0.837; p < 0.0001), (E) for MLR concerning mortality in AVF patients (AUC = 0.753; p = 0.001), (F) for PLR concerning mortality in AVF patients (AUC = 0.709; p = 0.008), (G) for NLR concerning the mortality rate in CVC patients (AUC = 0.887; p < 0.0001), (H) for MLR concerning the mortality rate in CVC patients (AUC = 0.783; p < 0.0001), (I) for PLR concerning the mortality rate in CVC patients (AUC = 0.674; p < 0.0001).
Table 1.
Demographic, comorbidities, risk factors, type of dialysis access, and outcome of all patients included in the analysis.
Table 1.
Demographic, comorbidities, risk factors, type of dialysis access, and outcome of all patients included in the analysis.
| Variables | All Patients n = 461 |
|---|---|
| Age mean ± SD (min–max) | 64.36 ± 12.14 (19–98) |
| Male sex no. (%) | 279 (60.52%) |
| Comorbidities and Risk factors | |
| AH, no. (%) | 388 (84.16%) |
| AF, no. (%) | 95 (20.6%) |
| CHF, no. (%) | 213 (46.2%) |
| IHD, no. (%) | 303 (65.72%) |
| MI, no. (%) | 97 (21.04%) |
| T2D, no. (%) | 164 (35.57%) |
| COPD, no. (%) | 133 (28.85%) |
| CVA, no. (%) | 117 (25.37%) |
| PAD, no. (%) | 143 (31.01%) |
| Tobacco, no. (%) | 199 (43.16%) |
| Obesity, no. (%) | 139 (30.15%) |
| Dyslipidemia, no. (%) | 217 (47.07%) |
| Type of dialysis access | |
| AVF, no. (%) | 191 (41.43%) |
| CVC, no. (%) | 270 (58.56%) |
| outcomes | |
| Hospital stay, day median [Q1–Q3] | 6 [4–11] |
| Dialysis session on patient, no. median [Q1–Q3] | 4 [2–6] |
| 30-day mortality, no. (%) | 69 (14.96%) |
AH = arterial hypertension; AF = atrial fibrillation; CHF = chronic heart failure; IHD = ischemic heart disease; MI = myocardial infarction; T2D = type 2 diabetes; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVA = cerebrovascular accident; PAD = peripheral artery disease; AVF = arteriovenous fistula; CVC = central venous catheter; SD = standard deviation.
Table 2.
Demographic, comorbidities, risk factors, type of dialysis access of the two sub-groups evaluated according to the poor outcome.
Table 2.
Demographic, comorbidities, risk factors, type of dialysis access of the two sub-groups evaluated according to the poor outcome.
| Survivors n = 392 | Deaths n = 69 | p Value (OR; CI 95%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age mean ± SD (min–max) | 63.58 ± 12.04 (19–89) | 68.82 ± 11.83 (46–98) | 0.001 # |
| Male sex no. (%) | 234 (59.69%) | 45 (65.21%) | 0.38 ¥ (0.79; 0.46–1.34) |
| Comorbidities and Risk factors | |||
| AH, no. (%) | 341 (86.98%) | 47 (68.11%) | 0.0001 ¥ (3.12; 1.74–5.62) |
| AF, no. (%) | 71 (18.11%) | 24 (34.78%) | 0.002 ¥ (0.41; 0.23–0.72) |
| CHF, no. (%) | 176 (44.89%) | 37 (53.62%) | 0.18 ¥ (0.7; 0.42–1.17) |
| IHD, no. (%) | 261 (66.58%) | 42 (60.86%) | 0.35 ¥ (1.28; 0.75–2.16) |
| MI, no. (%) | 69 (17.6%) | 28 (40.57%) | <0.0001 ¥ (0.31; 0.18–0.54) |
| T2D, no. (%) | 144 (36.73%) | 20 (28.98%) | 0.21 ¥ (0.81; 0.7–2.48) |
| COPD, no. (%) | 109 (27.8%) | 24 (34.78%) | 0.23 ¥ (0.72; 0.41–1.24) |
| CVA, no. (%) | 92 (23.46%) | 25 (36.23%) | 0.02 ¥ (0.53; 0.31–0.92) |
| PAD, no. (%) | 118 (30.1%) | 25 (36.23%) | 0.31 ¥ (0.75; 0.44–1.29) |
| Tobacco, no. (%) | 153 (39.03%) | 46 (66.67%) | <0.0001 ¥ (0.32; 0.18–0.54) |
| Obesity, no. (%) | 119 (30.35%) | 20 (28.98%) | 0.81 ¥ (1.06; 0.6–1.87) |
| Dyslipidemia, no. (%) | 183 (46.68%) | 35 (49.27%) | 0.69 ¥ (0.9; 0.54–1.5) |
| Type of dialysis access | |||
| AVF, no. (%) | 177 (45.15%) | 14 (20.28%) | 0.01 ¥ (0.46; 0.25–0.87) |
| CVC, no. (%) | 215 (54.84%) | 55 (79.71%) | |
AH = arterial hypertension; AF = atrial fibrillation; CHF = chronic heart failure; IHD = ischemic heart disease; MI = myocardial infarction; T2D = type 2 diabetes; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVA = cerebrovascular accident; PAD = peripheral artery disease; AVF = arteriovenous fistula; CVC = central venous catheter; SD = standard deviation; #, student t test; ¥, chi square test.
Table 3.
Laboratory data of the two sub-groups evaluated according to poor outcome.
| Survivors n = 392 | Deaths n = 69 | p Value § | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haemoglobin g/dL median [Q1–Q3] | 9.81 [8.41–11.3] | 9.6 [8.2–11.3] | 0.28 |
| Haematocrit % median [Q1–Q3] | 30.76 [26.2–34.4] | 31.19 [25.3–35.72] | 0.41 |
| Neutrophils ×10³/uL median [Q1–Q3] | 6.45 [4.57–8.25] | 11.29 [8.49–14.8] | <0.0001 |
| Lymphocytes ×10³/uL median [Q1–Q3] | 1.31 [0.94–1.83] | 0.62 [0.4–1.0] | <0.0001 |
| Monocyte ×10³/uL median [Q1–Q3] | 0.62 [0.45–0.88] | 0.64 [0.46–1.0] | 0.24 |
| PLT ×10³/uL median [Q1–Q3] | 216.95 [170.17–272.0] | 172 [125–235] | <0.0001 |
| Glucose mg/dL median [Q1–Q3] | 112 [95.0–143.25] | 116 [93–165] | 0.23 |
| BUN mg/dL median [Q1–Q3] | 137.5 [99.45–191.9] | 141.3 [98.95–220.1] | 0.2 |
| Creatinine mg/dL median [Q1–Q3] | 7.45 [5.87–9.63] | 7.41 [6.29–9.74] | 0.29 |
| Potassium mmol/L median [Q1–Q3] | 5.2 [4.65–6.06] | 5.1 [4.5–6.48] | 0.35 |
| NLR median [Q1–Q3] | 4.63 [2.87–7.89] | 17.91 [11.53–24.54] | <0.0001 |
| MLR median [Q1–Q3] | 0.45 [0.32–0.68] | 1 [0.7–1.63] | <0.0001 |
| PLR median [Q1–Q3] | 163.57 [115.22–238.23] | 273.25 [161.87–411.11] | <0.0001 |
PLT = total platelet count; BUN = blood urea nitrogen; NLR = neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio; MLR = monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; §, Mann Whitney test.
Table 4.
ROC curves, optimal Cut-Off value, AUC, and predictive accuracy of inflammatory markers NLR, MLR, and PLR.
Table 4.
ROC curves, optimal Cut-Off value, AUC, and predictive accuracy of inflammatory markers NLR, MLR, and PLR.
| Variable | Cut-Off | AUC | Std. Error | 95% CI | Sensitivity | Specificity | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mortality rate in all patients | |||||||
| NLR | 8.19 | 0.897 | 0.020 | 0.857–0.937 | 91.3% | 76% | <0.0001 |
| MLR | 0.63 | 0.792 | 0.035 | 0.724–0.860 | 79.7% | 71.4% | <0.0001 |
| PLR | 199.05 | 0.692 | 0.038 | 0.617–0.767 | 68.1% | 65.1% | <0.0001 |
| Mortality rate in AVF patients | |||||||
| NLR | 13.78 | 0.875 | 0.067 | 0.743–1.000 | 78.6% | 92.7% | <0.0001 |
| MLR | 0.809 | 0.772 | 0.080 | 0.615–0.928 | 78.6% | 80.8% | 0.001 |
| PLR | 198.19 | 0.734 | 0.074 | 0.589–0.879 | 78.6% | 67% | 0.004 |
| Mortality rate in CVC patients | |||||||
| NLR | 8.07 | 0.902 | 0.020 | 0.862–0.942 | 90.9% | 77.7% | <0.0001 |
| MLR | 0.69 | 0.802 | 0.039 | 0.725–0.879 | 76.4% | 76.3% | <0.0001 |
| PLR | 224.46 | 0.675 | 0.045 | 0.587–0.763 | 61.8% | 71.2% | <0.0001 |
AUC = areas under the curve; CI = confidence interval.
Table 5.
Outcomes of the two sub-groups evaluated separately according to the optimal cut-off value of NLR, MLR, and PLR.
Table 5.
Outcomes of the two sub-groups evaluated separately according to the optimal cut-off value of NLR, MLR, and PLR.
| Low-NLR n = 304 | High-NLR n = 157 | p Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital stay, day median [Q1–Q3] | 5 [4–9] | 10 [6–14] | <0.0001 § |
| Dialysis session on patient, no. median [Q1–Q3] | 2 [3–5] | 5 [3–7] | <0.0001 § |
| 30-day mortality, no. (%) | 6 (1.97%) | 63 (40.12%) | <0.0001 ¥ |
| low-MLR n = 291 | high-MLR n = 170 | p value | |
| Hospital stay, day median [Q1–Q3] | 5 [3.5–9] | 8 [5–12] | <0.0001 § |
| Dialysis session on patient, no. median [Q1–Q3] | 3 [2–5] | 4 [3–7] | <0.0001 § |
| 30-day mortality, no. (%) | 14 (4.81%) | 55 (32.35%) | <0.0001 ¥ |
| low-PLR n = 277 | high-PLR n = 184 | p value | |
| Hospital stay, day median [Q1–Q3] | 5 [3–9] | 9 [5–12] | <0.0001 § |
| Dialysis session on patient, no. median [Q1–Q3] | 3 [2–5] | 5 [3–7] | <0.0001 § |
| 30-day mortality, no. (%) | 22 (7.94%) | 47 (25.54%) | <0.0001 ¥ |
OR = odd ratio; §, Mann Whitney test; ¥, chi square test.
Table 6.
Multivariate analysis on 30 days mortality occurrences during the entire study period.
| 30 Days Mortality | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | p Value | |
| AF | 2.41 | 1.38–4.21 | 0.002 |
| MI | 3.19 | 1.85–5.52 | <0.001 |
| CHF | 1.41 | 0.84–2.37 | 0.18 |
| T2D | 0.70 | 0.40–1.23 | 0.21 |
| PAD | 1.31 | 0.77–2.25 | 0.31 |
| Tobacco | 3.12 | 1.82–5.36 | <0.001 |
| AVF | 0.30 | 0.16–0.57 | <0.001 |
| CVC | 3.23 | 1.76–6.01 | <0.001 |
| high-NLR | 33.28 | 13.96–79.36 | <0.001 |
| high-MLR | 9.46 | 5.06–17.69 | <0.001 |
| high-PLR | 3.97 | 2.30–6.87 | <0.001 |
AF = atrial fibrillation; CHF = chronic heart failure; MI = myocardial infarction; T2D = type 2 diabetes; PAD = peripheral artery disease; AVF = arteriovenous fistula; CVC = central venous catheter; NLR = neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio; MLR = monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio; PLR = platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Mureșan, A.V.; Russu, E.; Arbănași, E.M.; Kaller, R.; Hosu, I.; Arbănași, E.M.; Voidăzan, S.T. The Predictive Value of NLR, MLR, and PLR in the Outcome of End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10061272
AMA Style
Mureșan AV, Russu E, Arbănași EM, Kaller R, Hosu I, Arbănași EM, Voidăzan ST. The Predictive Value of NLR, MLR, and PLR in the Outcome of End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients. Biomedicines. 2022; 10(6):1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10061272
Chicago/Turabian StyleMureșan, Adrian Vasile, Eliza Russu, Emil Marian Arbănași, Réka Kaller, Ioan Hosu, Eliza Mihaela Arbănași, and Septimiu Toader Voidăzan. 2022. "The Predictive Value of NLR, MLR, and PLR in the Outcome of End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients" Biomedicines 10, no. 6: 1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10061272
APA StyleMureșan, A. V., Russu, E., Arbănași, E. M., Kaller, R., Hosu, I., Arbănași, E. M., & Voidăzan, S. T. (2022). The Predictive Value of NLR, MLR, and PLR in the Outcome of End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients. Biomedicines, 10(6), 1272. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10061272
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
