Platelet-to-Lymphocyte and Glucose-to-Lymphocyte Ratios as Prognostic Markers in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Abstract

Background: Novel and accessible biomarkers may add to the existing risk stratification schemes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and glucose-to-lymphocyte ratio (GLR) have emerged as potential indicators of systemic inflammation and metabolic stress, both of which are pivotal in ACS pathophysiology. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic significance of the PLR and GLR in patients with ACS.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with ACS between 2017 and 2023 at Hippokration Hospital of Thessaloniki, Greece. PLR and GLR were calculated from admission blood samples. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to investigate the associations of PLR and GLR with all-cause mortality. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and restricted cubic spline (RCS) modeling were also applied.

Results: In total, 853 patients (median age: 65 years, 72.3% males) were included. Higher PLR and GLR were independently associated with increased risk of long-term mortality [adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) for PLR: 1.007, 95% CI: 1.005-1.008; and for GLR: aOR = 1.006, 95% CI: 1.003-1.008]. The optimal cut-off values were 191.92 for PLR and 66.80 for GLR. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses confirmed significantly reduced survival in patients with GLR and PLR values exceeding these thresholds. RCS analysis revealed non-linear relationships, with mortality risk rising sharply at higher levels of both markers. PLR showed superior prognostic performance (AUC: 0.673, 95% CI: 0.614-0.723) compared to GLR (AUC: 0.602, 95% CI: 0.551-0.653).

Conclusions: While PLR demonstrated greater predictive accuracy, both PLR and GLR were consistently associated with mortality and may provide complementary prognostic information. Incorporating those ratios into routine clinical assessment may improve risk stratification, particularly in resource-limited settings or for patients without traditional risk factors.