Abstract
Background
Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (N/L) ratio has been associated with adverse outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes and increased risk for long-term mortality in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. We aimed to investigate the prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio on response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
Material/Methods
Seventy consecutive patients (mean age 58±13 years; 40 men) undergoing CRT were included in the study. Hematological and echocardiographic parameters were measured before and 6 months after CRT. Echocardiographic response to CRT was defined as a ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6-month follow-up.
Results
After 6 months of CRT, 49 (70%) patients were responders. After 6 months, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) had significantly increased, from 21±7% to 34±11% in responder patients (p=0.001). N/L ratio decreased significantly, from 2.4±1 to 2.1±0.7 in responders (p=0.04). In multivariate analysis, significant associates of echocardiographic response to CRT was evaluated adjusting for age, etiology of cardiomyopathy, baseline LVEF, New York Heart Association functional class, C-reactive protein, and baseline N/L ratio. Baseline N/L ratio was the only predictor of response to CRT (OR 1.506, 95% CI, 1.011–2.243, p=0.035).
Conclusions
N/L ratio at baseline could help to identify patients with response to CRT.
Keywords: cardiac resynchronization therapy, heart failure, neutrophil, lymphocyte
Background
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a major treatment for selected patients with heart failure (HF). CRT has been demonstrated to improve HF symptoms, exercise capacity, and quality of life, and to reduce HF hospitalization rates and mortality [1,2].
Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (N/L) ratio is a new prognostic marker in patients with CAD undergoing coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass grafting [3,4]. Recently, higher N/L ratio has been associated with increased risk for mortality in patients with acute decompensated HF [5]. However, no data exist about the association between N/L ratio and response to CRT. We investigated the relationship between N/L ratio and response to CRT.
Material and Methods
Patients
Seventy consecutive patients (mean age 58±13 years; 40 men) undergoing CRT were included in the study. Patients were selected according to following criteria: (1) chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class III or IV), (2) wide QRS interval (≥120 ms), and (3) left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF) ≤35%. Patients with hematological disease, cancer, ongoing systemic inflammatory conditions, and autoimmune disease were excluded from the study. Sixty-six patients had left bundle branch block. The remaining 4 patients had right bundle branch block. Clinical evaluation included the assessment of NYHA functional class.
Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The study was approved by the local ethics committee.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation
All pacemaker implantations were performed by left infraclavicular approach. Right atrial and ventricular leads were implanted using a transvenous approach. LV leads were inserted by a transvenous approach through the coronary sinus into a cardiac vein of the free wall. Patients received a biventricular pacemaker (InSync III, Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) or a biventricular cardioverter-defibrillator (InSync ICD, Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota). The atrioventricular interval was optimized using Doppler echocardiography after 1 week of implantation.
Echocardiography
Patients were imaged in the left lateral decubitus position with a commercially available system (VIVID 7, General Electric-Vingmed Ultrasound, Horten, Norway). Images were obtained with a 2.5-MHz broadband transducer at a depth of 16 cm in the parasternal and apical views (standard long-axis, 2- and 4-chamber images). Standard 2-dimensional and color Doppler data triggered to the QRS complex were saved in cine-loop format. LV volumes were calculated using the Teicholz method and LVEF was calculated from the conventional apical 2- and 4-chamber images using the biplane Simpson’s technique [6]. All echocardiographic measurements after CRT implantation were made with the device in active pacing mode. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed 1 week before pacemaker implantation and repeated 6 months later. Echocardiographic response to CRT was defined by a ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6-month follow-up [7].
Blood samples
Fasting blood samples were drawn from a large antecubital vein at admission. The samples were centrifuged for 10 min and blood counts were measured by using Cell-Dyn 3700 (Abbott, IL, USA) at baseline and 6 months later. Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were measured by a fluorescent polarization immunoassay (Abbott Diagnostics, Abbott Park, Illinois).
Statistical analysis
All analyses were performed with the statistical software program SPSS V.13.0. Continuous data are expressed as mean ±standard deviation (SD). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess differences in baseline clinical, echocardiographic, and hematological parameters between responder and non-responder patients. A comparison of the clinical, hematological and echocardiographic variables before and after CRT was performed by paired sample t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Variables associated with CRT response in univariate analysis were entered into a forward stepwise logistic regression model. A value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
The study population consisted of 70 patients. Baseline characteristics of the study group are shown in Table 1. Medication included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in 91%, beta-blockers in 89%, and diuretics in 90%. All medication was continued after CRT implantation. After 6 months of CRT, 49 (70%) patients were responders. The baseline clinical, hematological and echocardiographic parameters for responders and non-responders showed no statistically significant differences (Table 2).
Table 1.
Patient characteristics (n=70).
| Age (years) | 58±13 |
| Men (n/%) | 40/57% |
| Etiology | |
| Nonischemic (n/%) | 44/63% |
| Ischemic (n/%) | 26/37% |
| Hypertension (n/%) | 43/61% |
| Diabetes (n/%) | 16/23% |
| AF (n/%) | 10/14% |
| Use of ACE-inhibitors or ARB (n/%) | 64/91% |
| Use of beta-blocker (n/%) | 62/89% |
| Use of diuretic (n/%) | 63/90% |
| NYHA (mean) | 3.0±0.5 |
| LV EF (%) | 22±7 |
AF – atrial fibrillation; ACE – angiotensin converting enzyme; ARB – angiotensin receptor blocker; NYHA – New York Heart Association; LVEF – left ventricular ejection fraction.
Table 2.
Baseline clinical, echocardiographic and haematological parameters of responder and non-responder patients.
| Responders (n=49) | Non-responders (n=21) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NYHA (mean) | 3.1±0.6 | 3.2±0.5 | p=0.62 |
| LVEDD (mm) | 68±8 | 70±11 | p=0.37 |
| LVESD (mm) | 56±12 | 59±13 | p=0.34 |
| LAD (mm) | 43±7 | 46±7 | p=0.29 |
| LVEF (%) | 21±7 | 21±6 | p=0.52 |
| RVD (mm) | 25±3 | 25±5 | p=0.74 |
| LVEDV (mL) | 233±80 | 251±99 | p=0.28 |
| LVESV (mL) | 159±60 | 170±83 | p=0.55 |
| Neutrophil (×109/L) | 4.5±1.3 | 4.3±0.9 | p=0.87 |
| Lymphocyte (×109/L) | 2.1±0.7 | 1.8±0.7 | p=0.06 |
| N/L ratio | 2.37±1 | 3.0±1.7 | p=0.20 |
| CRP | 0.54±0.36 | 0.74±0.42 | p=0.06 |
NYHA – New York Heart Association; LVEDD – left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVESD – left ventricular end-systolic diameter; LAD – left atrium diameter; LVEF – left ventricular ejection fraction; RVD – right ventricular diameter; LVEDV – left ventricular end diastolic volume; LVESV – left ventricular end systolic volume; N/L – neutrophil to lymphocyte; CRP – C-reactive protein.
After 6 months, LVEF had significantly increased from 21±7% to 34±11% in responders (p=0.001). There was no significant increase in LVEF in non-responders at 6-month follow-up (21±6% vs. 24±6%, p=0.06). Mean NYHA functional class in responders and non-responders were 3.1±0.6 and 3.2±0.5, respectively (p=0.62). At 6 months, mean NYHA functional class improved from 3.1±0.6 to 2.1±0.3 in responders (p=0.001). There was no significant change in mean NYHA functional class in non-responders (3.2±0.5 vs. 3±0.2, p=0.26). N/L ratio was decreased significantly, from 2.4±1 to 2.0±0.7 in responder patients (p=0.03). However, N/L ratio was increased from 3±1.7 to 3.6±1.5 in non-responder patients (p=0.37) (Table 3). CRP was decreased significantly, from 0.54±0.36 to 0.39±0.28 in responder patients (p=0.001). CRP increased significantly, from 0.74±0.42 to 1.05±0.52 in non-responder patients (p=0.006)
Table 3.
Comparison of baseline and 6 months of clinical, echocardiographic and hematologic measuments in responder and non-responder patients.
| Responders (n=49) | Non-responders (n=21) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 6 months | P value | Baseline | 6 months | P value | |
| NYHA (mean) | 3.1±0.6 | 2.1±0.3 | 0.001 | 3.2±0.5 | 3±0.2 | 0.26 |
| LVEDD (mm) | 68±8 | 61±9 | 0.001 | 71±12 | 69±12 | 0.13 |
| LVESD (mm) | 56±12 | 48±12 | 0.07 | 59±13 | 58±12 | 0.10 |
| LVEF (%) | 21±7 | 34±11 | 0.001 | 21±6 | 24±6 | 0.06 |
| LA (mm) | 43±7 | 42±5 | 0.23 | 46±7 | 45±7 | 0.06 |
| RV (mm) | 25±3 | 23±3 | 0.003 | 25±5 | 26±5 | 0.07 |
| LVEDV (mL) | 233±80 | 186±69 | 0.001 | 251±99 | 238±96 | 0.09 |
| LVESV (mL) | 159±60 | 111±54 | 0.001 | 170±83 | 166±87 | 0.06 |
| Neutrophil (×109/L) | 4.5±1.3 | 4.3±1.2 | 0.25 | 4.3±0.9 | 5.5±2.1 | 0.31 |
| Lymphocyte (×109/L) | 2.1±0.7 | 2.3±0.7 | 0.32 | 1.8±0.7 | 1.7±0.8 | 0.95 |
| N/L ratio | 2.4±1 | 2.0±0.7 | 0.03 | 3±1.7 | 3.6±1.5 | 0.37 |
| CRP | 0.54±0.36 | 0.39±0.28 | 0.001 | 0.74±0.42 | 1.05±0.52 | 0.006 |
NYHA – New York Heart Association; LVEDD – left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVESD – left ventricular end-systolic diameter; LVEF – left ventricular ejection fraction; LA – left atrium; RV – right ventricle; LVEDV – left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVESV – left ventricular end-systolic volume; N/L ratio – neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio; CRP – C-reactive protein.
In multivariate analysis, significant associates of echocardiographic response to CRT were evaluated adjusting for age, etiology of cardiomyopathy, baseline LVEF, NYHA functional class, CRP, and baseline N/L ratio. Baseline N/L ratio was the only predictor of response to CRT (OR 1.506, 95% CI, 1.011–2.243, p=0.035).
Discussion
Cardiac resynchronization therapy is considered an important treatment option of patients with wide QRS and advanced CHF who are receiving optimal medical treatment. However, prediction of response to CRT remains problematic and an important proportion of patients do not respond to CRT, although they are selected according to current patient selection criteria [8–10].
Additional echocardiographic, electrocardiographic, and blood markers have been investigated in various studies to find patients most likely to respond CRT [11–14]. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to investigate the prognostic significance of N/L ratio in HF patients who underwent CRT.
Lymphocytopenia has been independently associated with increased mortality in patients with acute and chronic HF [5,15]. Downregulation of the proliferation and differentiation of lymphocytes, neurohumoral activation, and lymphocyte apoptosis have been suggested as potential mechanisms for lymphocytopenia [5]. In our study, lymphocyte count was lower in the non-responder patient group. Although the difference in lymphocyte count between responder and non-responder patients was not significant, low lymphocyte count in non-responder patients may reflect a more advanced disease stage. In addition, lymphocyte and neutrophil counts were not significantly changed in responder and non-responder patient groups. However, lymphocyte count was increased and N/L ratio was significantly decreased in responder patients.
CRP is a pentameric protein associated with inflammation, and elevated CRP levels have been observed in HF patients [16]. Also, higher CRP levels were associated with advanced HF and independently with mortality and morbidity [17]. Antiinflammatory effects of CRT have been demonstrated [18,19]. In our study, baseline CRP levels were not statistically different, but CRP levels were significantly reduced in responder patients in contrast to non-responder patients. The increased lymphocyte count, decreased N/L ratio, and decreased CRP in responder patients may reflect decreased systemic inflammation with CRT response, which in turn may help in development of reverse remodelling.
In addition, the importance of baseline cardiac dimensions in prognosis and response to CRT has been reported previously [20–22]. The mean left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) in responder patients was larger than in non-responder patients. Although the difference was not statistically significant, increased mean LVEDD in non-responder patients may also relate to a more progressive disease and extensive scar tissue.
Our study was limited in that it was a single-center, nonrandomized design and the study sample was small; a larger study population might increase the significance of the presented data.
Conclusions
Our data suggest that determination of N/L ratio at baseline could help identify patients with response to CRT.
Footnotes
Source of support: Departmental sources
References
- 1.van Bommel RJ, Borleffs CJ, Ypenburg C, et al. Morbidity and mortality in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: influence of pre-implantation characteristics on long-term outcome. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2783–90. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Foley PW, Chalil S, Khadjooi K, et al. Left ventricular reverse remodelling, long-term clinical outcome, and mode of death after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13:43–51. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfq182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Azab B, Zaher M, Weiserbs KF, et al. Usefulness of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in predicting short- and long-term mortality after non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:470–76. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.03.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Gibson PH, Cuthbertson BH, Croal BL, et al. Usefulness of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio as predictor of new-onset atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:186–91. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Uthamalingam S, Patvardhan EA, Subramanian S, et al. Utility of the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in predicting long-term outcomes in acute decompensated heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:433–38. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.09.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Schiller NB, Shah PM, Crawford M, et al. Recommendations for quantitation of the left ventricle by two-dimensional echocardiography. American Society of Echocardiography Committee on Standards, Subcommittee on Quantitation of Two-Dimensional Echocardiograms. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1989;2:358–67. doi: 10.1016/s0894-7317(89)80014-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Auger D, van Bommel RJ, Bertini M, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of patients with clinical improvement but not significant left ventricular reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Am Heart J. 2010;160:737–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.AlJaroudi W, Chen J, Jaber WA, et al. Nonechocardiographic imaging in evaluation for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:334–43. doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.111.963504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Yu CM, Zhang Q, Fung JW, et al. A novel tool to assess systolic asynchrony and identify responders of cardiac resynchronization therapy by tissue synchronization imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:677–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bax JJ, Bleeker GB, Marwick TH, et al. Left ventricular dyssynchrony predicts response and prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1834–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cappelli F, Cristina Porciani M, Ricceri I, et al. Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion evaluation improves selection of cardiac resynchronization therapy patients. Clin Cardiol. 2010;33:578–82. doi: 10.1002/clc.20806. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Celikyurt U, Agacdiken A, Sahin T, et al. Number of Leads With Fragmented QRS Predicts Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. Clin Cardiol. 2013;36(1):36–39. doi: 10.1002/clc.22061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Rickard J, Kumbhani DJ, Gorodeski EZ, et al. Elevated red cell distribution width is associated with impaired reverse ventricular remodeling and increased mortality in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy. Congest Heart Fail. 2012;18:79–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7133.2011.00267.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Goldenberg I, Moss AJ, Hall WJ, et al. Predictors of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) Circulation. 2011;124:1527–36. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.014324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ommen SR, Hodge DO, Rodeheffer RJ, et al. Predictive power of the relative lymphocyte concentration in patients with advanced heart failure. Circulation. 1998;97:19–22. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.97.1.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Alonso-Martínez JL, Llorente-Diez B, Echegaray-Agara M, et al. C-reactive protein as a predictor of improvement and readmission in heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2002;4:331–36. doi: 10.1016/s1388-9842(02)00021-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Anand IS, Latini R, Florea VG, et al. C-reactive protein in heart failure: prognostic value and the effect of valsartan. Circulation. 2005;112:1428–34. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.508465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Theodorakis GN, Flevari P, Kroupis C, et al. Antiinflammatory effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with chronic heart failure. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29:255–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00331.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lappegård KT, Bjørnstad H. Anti-inflammatory effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29:753–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00430.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.White HD, Norris RM, Brown MA, et al. Left ventricular end-systolic volume as the major determinant of survival after recovery from myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1987;76:44–51. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.76.1.44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Díaz-Infante E, Mont L, Leal J, et al. Predictors of lack of response to resynchronization therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:1436–40. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Achilli A, Peraldo C, Sassara M, et al. Prediction of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: the selection of candidates for CRT (SCART) study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006;29(Suppl 2):S11–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00486.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]