Predictive role of neutrophil-to-platelet ratio in futile recanalization of patients after endovascular therapy.

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL

Biomarkers in medicine Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-20 DOI:10.2217/bmm-2023-0585

Bing-Hu Li, Li-Rong Wang, Jie Huang, Shu Yang, Bin Huang, Li-Jun Jia, Sen Zhou, Fu-Qiang Guo, Jian-Hong Wang, Neng-Wei Yu

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To explore the association between the neutrophil-to-platelet ratio (NPR) and futile recanalization (FR) in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vascular occlusions after endovascular therapy (EVT). Methods: FR after EVT was defined as a poor 90-day prognosis (modified Rankin scale [mRS] score ≥3) despite successful reperfusion (modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction grade 2b-3). Patients were divided into high NPR (>35; n = 115) and low NPR (≤35; n = 81) groups. Results: The FR rate was significantly higher in the high NPR group than low NPR group (81.74 vs 55.56%; p = 0.000). NPR was independently associated with FR (odds ratio: 2.107; 95% CI: 1.017-4.364; p = 0.045). Conclusion: High NPR was associated with the risk of FR in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vascular occlusions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

中性粒细胞与血小板比值对血管内治疗后无效再通畅患者的预测作用。

目的：探讨血管内治疗（EVT）后大血管闭塞导致的急性缺血性卒中患者中性粒细胞与血小板比值（NPR）与徒劳再通畅（FR）之间的关系。方法：EVT后的FR定义为尽管再灌注成功（改良脑梗塞溶栓治疗2b-3级），但90天预后不良（改良Rankin量表[mRS]评分≥3）。患者被分为高 NPR 组（>35；n = 115）和低 NPR 组（≤35；n = 81）。结果显示高 NPR 组的 FR 率明显高于低 NPR 组（81.74% vs 55.56%；P = 0.000）。NPR 与 FR 独立相关（几率比：2.107；95% CI：1.017-4.364；P = 0.045）。结论高 NPR 与大血管闭塞导致的急性缺血性卒中患者的 FR 风险相关。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Biomarkers in medicine 医学-医学：研究与实验

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

4.50%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Biomarkers are physical, functional or biochemical indicators of physiological or disease processes. These key indicators can provide vital information in determining disease prognosis, in predicting of response to therapies, adverse events and drug interactions, and in establishing baseline risk. The explosion of interest in biomarker research is driving the development of new predictive, diagnostic and prognostic products in modern medical practice, and biomarkers are also playing an increasingly important role in the discovery and development of new drugs. For the full utility of biomarkers to be realized, we require greater understanding of disease mechanisms, and the interplay between disease mechanisms, therapeutic interventions and the proposed biomarkers. However, in attempting to evaluate the pros and cons of biomarkers systematically, we are moving into new, challenging territory. Biomarkers in Medicine (ISSN 1752-0363) is a peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal delivering commentary and analysis on the advances in our understanding of biomarkers and their potential and actual applications in medicine. The journal facilitates translation of our research knowledge into the clinic to increase the effectiveness of medical practice. As the scientific rationale and regulatory acceptance for biomarkers in medicine and in drug development become more fully established, Biomarkers in Medicine provides the platform for all players in this increasingly vital area to communicate and debate all issues relating to the potential utility and applications. Each issue includes a diversity of content to provide rounded coverage for the research professional. Articles include Guest Editorials, Interviews, Reviews, Research Articles, Perspectives, Priority Paper Evaluations, Special Reports, Case Reports, Conference Reports and Company Profiles. Review coverage is divided into themed sections according to area of therapeutic utility with some issues including themed sections on an area of topical interest. Biomarkers in Medicine provides a platform for commentary and debate for all professionals with an interest in the identification of biomarkers, elucidation of their role and formalization and approval of their application in modern medicine. The audience for Biomarkers in Medicine includes academic and industrial researchers, clinicians, pathologists, clinical chemists and regulatory professionals.