急性A型主动脉夹层入院炎症生物标志物评价预后的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Q3 Medicine
AORTA Pub Date : 2025-10-07 DOI:10.1055/a-2693-4070
Sarah Shirley, Alana Maerivoet, Helen L Wright, Mark Field, Jillian Madine
{"title":"急性A型主动脉夹层入院炎症生物标志物评价预后的系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Sarah Shirley, Alana Maerivoet, Helen L Wright, Mark Field, Jillian Madine","doi":"10.1055/a-2693-4070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is traumatic and life-threatening involving a split of the intima media along a variable length of the aorta from aortic root to aortic bifurcation. The pathology results in a local and systemic inflammatory process with elevated inflammatory markers observed at hospital admission. This systematic literature review aimed to compare the effectiveness of admission inflammatory markers in predicting adverse outcomes in postoperative ATAAD patients. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting postoperative outcomes or receiver operating characteristic results stratified by routine admission markers of inflammation in ATAAD patients. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022366509). Following abstract and full-text screening, 79 studies were included in the analysis, with 39 included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analyses using random effects models of white blood cell count, neutrophil count, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio stratified by survival indicated that levels were significantly lower in survivors than nonsurvivors. The mean difference for white blood cell count was 1.51 (confidence interval [CI = 1.07, 1.95]), neutrophil count 1.50 [CI = 1.05, 1.95], and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio 3.45 [CI = 2.50, 4.41]. Similarly, survivors had lower C-reactive protein levels than nonsurvivors (standardized mean difference = 0.5227 [CI = 0.1781, 0.8672]). Conversely, lymphocyte counts were higher in survivors than nonsurvivors (mean difference = -0.12 [CI = -0.18, -0.06]). All models had significant heterogeneity despite using random effects models, likely due to the multitude of presentations. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models were performed for neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein and showed similar sensitivity at detecting mortality in ATAAD patients for each fixed specificity. Data showed that deranged inflammatory markers are associated with poorer outcomes in ATAAD; however, none of these measures provide suitable prognostic markers alone. Continued development of multifactorial risk scores, including inflammatory markers and other factors, such as thrombotic measures, may enable clinically relevant prognostic tools and risk stratification.</p>","PeriodicalId":52392,"journal":{"name":"AORTA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Admission Inflammatory Biomarkers for Evaluating Prognosis in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Shirley, Alana Maerivoet, Helen L Wright, Mark Field, Jillian Madine\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2693-4070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is traumatic and life-threatening involving a split of the intima media along a variable length of the aorta from aortic root to aortic bifurcation. The pathology results in a local and systemic inflammatory process with elevated inflammatory markers observed at hospital admission. This systematic literature review aimed to compare the effectiveness of admission inflammatory markers in predicting adverse outcomes in postoperative ATAAD patients. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting postoperative outcomes or receiver operating characteristic results stratified by routine admission markers of inflammation in ATAAD patients. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022366509). Following abstract and full-text screening, 79 studies were included in the analysis, with 39 included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analyses using random effects models of white blood cell count, neutrophil count, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio stratified by survival indicated that levels were significantly lower in survivors than nonsurvivors. The mean difference for white blood cell count was 1.51 (confidence interval [CI = 1.07, 1.95]), neutrophil count 1.50 [CI = 1.05, 1.95], and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio 3.45 [CI = 2.50, 4.41]. Similarly, survivors had lower C-reactive protein levels than nonsurvivors (standardized mean difference = 0.5227 [CI = 0.1781, 0.8672]). Conversely, lymphocyte counts were higher in survivors than nonsurvivors (mean difference = -0.12 [CI = -0.18, -0.06]). All models had significant heterogeneity despite using random effects models, likely due to the multitude of presentations. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models were performed for neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein and showed similar sensitivity at detecting mortality in ATAAD patients for each fixed specificity. Data showed that deranged inflammatory markers are associated with poorer outcomes in ATAAD; however, none of these measures provide suitable prognostic markers alone. Continued development of multifactorial risk scores, including inflammatory markers and other factors, such as thrombotic measures, may enable clinically relevant prognostic tools and risk stratification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AORTA\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AORTA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2693-4070\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AORTA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2693-4070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

急性A型主动脉夹层(ATAAD)是一种创伤性和危及生命的疾病,它涉及到从主动脉根部到主动脉分叉沿可变长度的主动脉内膜分裂。病理结果是局部和全身炎症过程,入院时观察到炎症标志物升高。本系统文献综述旨在比较入院炎症标志物在预测ATAAD术后患者不良预后方面的有效性。入选标准包括报告ATAAD患者术后结局或按常规入院炎症标志物分层的受试者操作特征结果的研究。研究方案已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42022366509)。摘要和全文筛选后,79项研究纳入分析,其中39项纳入元分析。采用白细胞计数、中性粒细胞计数和中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比随机效应模型的meta分析显示,幸存者的白细胞计数水平明显低于非幸存者。白细胞计数的平均差异为1.51(可信区间[CI = 1.07, 1.95]),中性粒细胞计数的平均差异为1.50 (CI = 1.05, 1.95),中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值的平均差异为3.45 (CI = 2.50, 4.41)。同样,幸存者的c反应蛋白水平低于非幸存者(标准化平均差= 0.5227 [CI = 0.1781, 0.8672])。相反,幸存者的淋巴细胞计数高于非幸存者(平均差异= -0.12 [CI = -0.18, -0.06])。尽管使用了随机效应模型,但所有模型都有显著的异质性,这可能是由于大量的展示。对中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比率和c反应蛋白进行了分级汇总的受体操作特征模型,在检测ATAAD患者死亡率时,每种固定特异性都显示出相似的敏感性。数据显示,紊乱的炎症标志物与ATAAD较差的预后相关;然而,这些措施都不能单独提供合适的预后指标。多因素风险评分的持续发展,包括炎症标志物和其他因素,如血栓形成措施,可能使临床相关的预后工具和风险分层成为可能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Admission Inflammatory Biomarkers for Evaluating Prognosis in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is traumatic and life-threatening involving a split of the intima media along a variable length of the aorta from aortic root to aortic bifurcation. The pathology results in a local and systemic inflammatory process with elevated inflammatory markers observed at hospital admission. This systematic literature review aimed to compare the effectiveness of admission inflammatory markers in predicting adverse outcomes in postoperative ATAAD patients. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting postoperative outcomes or receiver operating characteristic results stratified by routine admission markers of inflammation in ATAAD patients. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022366509). Following abstract and full-text screening, 79 studies were included in the analysis, with 39 included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analyses using random effects models of white blood cell count, neutrophil count, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio stratified by survival indicated that levels were significantly lower in survivors than nonsurvivors. The mean difference for white blood cell count was 1.51 (confidence interval [CI = 1.07, 1.95]), neutrophil count 1.50 [CI = 1.05, 1.95], and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio 3.45 [CI = 2.50, 4.41]. Similarly, survivors had lower C-reactive protein levels than nonsurvivors (standardized mean difference = 0.5227 [CI = 0.1781, 0.8672]). Conversely, lymphocyte counts were higher in survivors than nonsurvivors (mean difference = -0.12 [CI = -0.18, -0.06]). All models had significant heterogeneity despite using random effects models, likely due to the multitude of presentations. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models were performed for neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein and showed similar sensitivity at detecting mortality in ATAAD patients for each fixed specificity. Data showed that deranged inflammatory markers are associated with poorer outcomes in ATAAD; however, none of these measures provide suitable prognostic markers alone. Continued development of multifactorial risk scores, including inflammatory markers and other factors, such as thrombotic measures, may enable clinically relevant prognostic tools and risk stratification.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AORTA
AORTA Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
119
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信