Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 May 27;16(5):e0252030. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252030

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio associated with an increased risk of mortality in patients with critical limb ischemia

Min-I Su 1,2, Cheng-Wei Liu 3,4,*
Editor: Timir Paul5
PMCID: PMC8158906  PMID: 34043672

Abstract

Purpose

Association of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) with mortality has not been comprehensively explored in critical limb ischemia (CLI) patients. We investigated the association between the NLR and clinical outcomes in CLI.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively enrolled consecutive CLI patients between 1/1/2013 and 12/31/2018. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis determined NLR cutoffs for 1-year in-hospital, all-cause and cardiac-related mortality; major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs); and major adverse limb events (MALEs).

Results

Among 195 patients (age, 74.0 years, SD: 11.5; 51.8% male; body mass index, 23.4 kg/m2, SD: 4.2), 14.4% exhibited acute limb ischemia. After 1 year, patients with NLR>8 had higher in-hospital mortality (21.1% vs. 3.6%, P<0.001), all-cause mortality (54.4% vs. 13.8%, P<0.001), cardiac-related mortality (28.1% vs. 6.5%, P<0.001), MACE (29.8% vs. 13.0%, P = 0.008), and MALE (28.1% vs. 13.0%, P = 0.021) rates than those with NLR<8. In multivariate logistic regression, NLR≥8 was significantly associated with all-cause (P<0.001) and cardiac-related (adjusted HR: 5.286, 95% CI: 2.075–13.47, P<0.001) mortality, and NLR≥6 was significantly associated with MALEs (adjusted HR: 2.804, 95% CI: 1.292–6.088, P = 0.009). Each increase in the NLR was associated with increases in all-cause (adjusted HR: 1.028, 95% CI: 1.008–1.049, P = 0.007) and cardiac-related (adjusted HR:1.027, 95% CI: 0.998–1.057, P = 0.073) mortality but not in-hospital mortality or MACEs.

Conclusion

CLI patients with high NLRs had significantly higher risks of 1-year all-cause and cardiac-related mortality and MALEs. The NLR can be used for prognostic prediction in these patients.

Introduction

The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is widely used as a prognostic biomarker in various diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease [1, 2]. Both of these disorders have a common pathophysiology involving inflammatory processes that can be roughly represented as the ratio of neutrophils [3, 4]; the proportion of lymphocytes indicates the host immune response and has been associated with mortality in healthy individuals [5]. The NLR combines the properties of the inflammatory and immune responses and thereby enables the prediction of outcomes in patients with diverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular and peripheral vascular diseases [6, 7].

An elevated NLR has been associated with unfavorable neurological outcomes and increased mortality in patients with ischemic stroke [8], with an increased risk of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction [9], and with the severity of lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) in cohort studies [10, 11]. Other cohort studies have further reported the association between NLR and mortality in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) [12, 13]. However, no studies have reported the comprehensive outcomes of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality, MACE, and major adverse limb events (MALE) in patients with CLI. Therefore, we conducted the present study to investigate the association between the NLR and outcomes in patients with CLI.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively and continuously enrolled patients with CLI undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty at our hospital between 2013/1/1 and 2018/12/31. The study patients were all-comers, with the only specific exclusion criterion CLI patients with a nonsalvageable limb who refused amputation surgery. We divided the study patients into higher and lower NLR groups and collected the patients’ baseline characteristics, laboratory data, procedural details, and outcomes from medical records. All patients were followed up until 2019/12/31. Given that the present study was a retrospective cohort study with a low risk, no informed consent was needed from the study patients. The study was approved by the MacKay Memorial Hospital with Institutional Review Board number (20MMHIS034e).

Patients who present to our emergency department with CLI routinely receive dual anti-platelet therapy with aspirin plus clopidogrel, and heparinization is loaded according to the guidelines unless contraindicated. We do not routinely prescribe cilostazol to patients with CLI. We measured complete blood count and white blood cell differential at our emergency department before the patients received percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. During this study, patients who presented with acute limb ischemia were treated by emergent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, and patients with chronic limb ischemia were treated by urgent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. In our cardiac catheterization laboratory, the physicians decided whether to use an antegrade or retrograde approach depending on a patient’s lesion type. Heparin was administered to maintain an active clotting time between 250 and 300 seconds. Because of our national health insurance rules, we generally treat iliac and femoropopliteal lesions with balloon angioplasty, a drug-coated balloon or a stent and below-knee lesions with only balloon angioplasty; use of a drug-coated balloon or stent was left to the physicians’ decision and was mainly influenced by the patients’ economic status. At discharge, dual anti-platelet agents were continued for at least one month unless clinically significant bleeding complications developed.

CLI was defined according to the Rutherford classification, including rest pain (stage IV), tissue loss (stage V), and gangrene (stage VI) [14]. The primary study outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiac-related mortality, MACE, and MALE at the one-year follow-up. MACE was defined as the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiac-related death; MALE was defined as an amputation due to a vascular event above the forefoot, acute limb ischemia and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital all-cause mortality.

Continuous variables are presented as numbers and standard deviations, and binary variables are presented as numbers and percentages; independent t-tests and chi-squared tests were used to evaluate differences in continuous variables and binary variables, respectively. We used receiver operating characteristic curves to identify NLR cut-off values for each study outcome. We used univariate logistic regression analyses to investigate the associations between NLR and study outcomes and between variables and study outcomes. Variables that were significantly associated with the study outcomes were considered confounders, and they were adjusted in multivariate logistic regression analyses. The presence of acute limb ischemia and Rutherford classification criteria were major risk factors associated with outcomes in patients with CLI and were adjusted in the multivariate logistic regression analyses to determine whether they were significantly associated with the study outcomes identified in the univariate logistic regression analyses. All P values are two-tailed, and P values of 0.05 or lower were considered significant. We performed all statistical analyses with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS software, version 20.0).

Results

The study consisted of 195 patients with CLI who underwent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty after we excluded three patients with a nonsalvageable limb who refused amputation surgery and two patients with missing data for NLR. The patients had a mean age of 74 years, (SD:12) and a mean NLR of 8.2 (SD:10.0), with 52.3% male and Rutherford stages IV, V, and VI accounting for 27.4%, 66.0%, and 6.6% of the patients, respectively. We used receiver operating characteristic curves to identify cut-off values for NLR; these cut-off values were eight for one-year all-cause and cardiac-related mortality and MACE, six for MALE, and five for in-hospital mortality. Fig 1 shows the area under the curve for the study outcomes. The incidences of the primary outcomes were 25.4% for all-cause mortality, 12.7% for cardiac-related mortality, 17.8% for MACE, and 17.3% for MALE, and the incidence of the secondary outcome was 8.6% for in-hospital all-cause mortality. Regarding the Rutherford classification, in CLI patients with Rutherford stages IV, V, and VI, the incidences of all-cause mortality were 18.9%, 26.4%, and 46.2%, respectively, and those of MALE were 0%, 22.5% and 38.5%, respectively.

Fig 1. Receiver operating characteristic curves showing the NLR cut-off for each study outcome.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

With regard for the primary study outcomes, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics, such as the ratio of smoking and chronic kidney disease, a history of amputation, and heart failure status, between patients with NLR ≥ 8 vs. NLR < 8; however, compared with patients with NLR < 8, those with NLR ≥ 8 had higher heart rates (93.3 vs. 86.5 beats per minute, P = 0.014), a higher rate of presenting with acute limb ischemia (29.8% vs. 9.2%, P = 0.001) and a more severe Rutherford stage (70.2% vs. 65.2% for stage V, 14.0% vs 3.5% for stage VI, P = 0.005). Medication use at baseline did not differ between the two groups except that there was a lower rate of cilostazol use in the patients with NLR > 8 than in those with NLR < 8 (31.6% vs. 51.8%, P = 0.012). We show the patients’ baseline characteristics, laboratory data, and medication use by NLR ≥ 8 vs. < 8 in relation to one-year all-cause and cardiac-related mortality and MACE in Table 1; by NLR ≥ 5 vs. NLR < 5 in relation to in-hospital mortality in S1 Table; and by NLR ≥ 6 vs. < 6 in relation to MALE in S2 Table. In our study, the mean NLR value was 6.1 (SD:7.4) for Rutherford stage IV, 8.6 (SD:1.07) for Rutherford stage V, and 13.2 (SD: 10.6) for Rutherford stage VI.

Table 1. Baseline and procedural characteristics and laboratory data for patients with critical limb ischemia.

NLR < 8 NLR ≥ 8 P
N = 138 N = 57
Age (years) 73.6 (11.8) 75.1 (10.9) 0.393
Male sex 70 50.7% 31 54.4% 0.753
Body mass index (kg/m2) 23.6 (4.0) 23.0 (4.5) 0.358
Heart rate at baseline (beats per minute) 86.1 (15.6) 93.3 (21.7) 0.025
Systolic BP at baseline (mm Hg) 148.6 (31.0) 144.0 (33.1) 0.407
Diastolic BP at baseline (mm Hg) 74.7 (13.0) 76.3 (17.7) 0.531
Current/past smoker 35 25.4% 11 19.3% 0.459
Alcohol intake 38 27.5% 17 29.8% 0.730
Family history of premature CAD 2 1.4% 0 0% 1.000
History of hypertension 97 70.3% 32 56.1% 0.068
History of diabetes mellitus 97 70.3% 37 64.9% 0.499
History of insulin use 20 14.5% 5 8.8% 0.350
History of dyslipidemia 22 15.9% 11 19.3% 0.675
 Normal kidney function 89 64.5% 34 59.6% 0.150
Chronic kidney disease 26 18.4% 7 12.3%
End-stage renal disease 23 16.7% 16 28.1%
History of CAD 52 37.7% 23 40.4% 0.748
History of myocardial infarction 11 8.0% 2 3.5% 0.355
History of atrial fibrillation 21 15.2% 5 8.8% 0.258
History of chronic heart failure 29 21.0% 13 22.8% 0.920
 NYHA class I 6 4.3% 4 7.0%
 NYHA class II 8 5.8% 4 7.0%
 NYHA class III 11 8.0% 4 7.0%
 NYHA class IV 4 2.9% 1 1.8%
History of carotid artery stenosis 3 2.2% 0 0% 0.557
History of ischemic stroke 24 17.4% 10 17.5% 1.000
Ongoing cancer 10 7.1% 2 3.5% 0.514
History of amputation 0.991
Above-knee amputation 4 2.9% 2 3.5%
Below-knee amputation 2 1.4% 1 1.8%
Forefoot amputation 3 2.2% 1 1.8%
Presented with acute ischemic limb 11 8.0% 17 29.8% <0.001
Rutherford classification 0.005
 Class IV 44 31.9% 9 15.8%
 Class V 89 64.5% 40 70.2%
 Class VI 5 3.6% 8 14.0%
Laboratory data
 Total cholesterol (mg/dL) 159.2 (46.8) 148.0 (48.8) 0.160
 High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL) 40.9 (18.6) 38.2 (19.2) 0.639
 Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL) 95.0 (34.9) 83.2 (43.7) 0.257
 Triglyceride (mg/dL) 151.8 (121.7) 117.9 (83.2) 0.205
 Fasting glucose (mg/dL) 177.7 (95.0) 184.9 (126.2) 0.663
 Glycosylated hemoglobin (%) 7.4 (1.8) 7.6 (2.1) 0.684
 Creatinine (mg/dL) 3.3 (3.1) 3.8 (3.6) 0.288
 Alanine transaminase (IU/L) 18.5 (10.4) 33.6 (35.2) 0.003
 Uric acid (mg/dL) 5.6 (2.2) 6.1 (2.9) 0.248
 White blood cell count 103/μL 7.8 (3.1) 14.4 (5.8) <0.001
 Neutrophil ratio (%) 65.3 (12.2) 84.9 (5.1) <0.001
 Lymphocyte ratio (%) 20.3 (7.8) 5.9 (2.5) <0.001
 NLR 3.9 (1.9) 18.7 (13.5) <0.001
Medication use at baseline
 Aspirin 49 35.5% 18 31.6% 0.623
 Cilostazol 72 52.2% 18 31.6% 0.011
 Clopidogrel 35 25.4% 18 31.6% 0.381
 Pentoxifylline 8 5.8% 0 0% 0.108
 ACEI or ARB 7 5.1% 2 3.5% 1.000
 Beta-blocker 26 18.8% 9 15.8% 0.686
 Calcium channel blocker 29 21.0% 10 17.5% 0.695
 Statin 28 20.3% 9 15.8% 0.550
 Urate lowering therapy 3 2.2% 2 3.5% 0.631
Procedure characteristics
Ischemia-related artery
 Iliac artery involvement 16 11.6% 7 12.3% 1.000
 Superficial femoral artery involvement 90 65.2% 33 57.9% 0.415
 Below the knee artery involvement 25 18.1% 10 17.5% 1.000
 In-stent restenosis 2 1.4% 2 3.5% 0.582
Open in a new tab

Values are expressed as numbers (standard deviation) or numbers and percentages.

CAD = coronary artery disease; NYHA = New York Heart Association; BP = blood pressure; NLR = neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB = angiotensin receptor blocker

The primary outcomes were significantly worse in patients with NLR ≥ 8 than in those with NLR < 8 (54.4% vs. 13.8%, P < 0.001 for one-year all-cause mortality; 28.1% vs. 6.5%, P < 0.001 for cardiac-related mortality; 29.8% vs. 13.0%, P = 0.008 for MACE; and 28.1% vs. 13.0%, P = 0.021 for MALE); the secondary outcomes were also significantly worse in patients with NLR ≥ 8 than in the patients with NLR < 8 (21.1% vs. 3.6%, P < 0.001). Regarding the primary outcomes in univariate logistic regression analyses, each incremental increase in NLR was associated with increases in all-cause mortality (crude HR: 1.028, 95% CI: 1.013–1.042, P < 0.001) and cardiac-related mortality (crude HR: 1.025, 95% CI: 1.004–1.047, P = 0.021) but not MACE (crude HR: 1.014, 95% CI: 0.990–1.038, P = 0.267) or MALE (crude HR: 1.012, 95% CI: 0.987–1.038, P = 0.346). Incremental increases in NLR were not associated with the secondary outcomes (crude HR: 1.012, 95% CI: 0.965–1.061, P = 0.626). We demonstrate there are associations between NLR and both variables and study outcomes in Table 2. With regard for mortality and MACE, other factors associated with the study outcomes included baseline heart rate and the presence of acute limb ischemia, whereas the Rutherford stage was associated with MALE but not all-cause and cardiac-related mortality and MACE.

Table 2. Variables associated with study outcomes in patients with critical limb ischemia in logistic regression analyses.

cHR 95% CI P aHR 95% CI P aHR 95% CI P
All-cause mortality at one year
 NLR as a continuous variablea 1.028 1.013 1.042 <0.001 1.028 1.008 1.049 0.007
 NLR ≥ 8 vs. < 8a 5.272 2.972 9.353 <0.001 3.599 1.818 7.123 <0.001
 Age (years) 1.031 1.004 1.059 0.023 1.013 0.983 1.044 0.400 1.014 0.983 1.045 0.393
 Male sex 0.698 0.399 1.220 0.206 0.487 0.249 0.954 0.036 0.535 0.278 1.028 0.061
 Body mass index (kg/m2) 0.937 0.867 1.012 0.096 0.938 0.862 1.022 0.143 0.939 0.867 1.018 0.126
 Smoking (yes or no) 0.979 0.585 1.637 0.935
 Hypertension (yes or no) 0.618 0.353 1.080 0.091
 Heart rate (beats per minute) 1.025 1.009 1.042 0.002 1.016 0.997 1.036 0.095 1.012 0.993 1.032 0.205
 Alanine transaminase (IU/L) 1.020 1.012 1.028 <0.001 1.011 1.001 1.022 0.045 1.010 0.999 1.021 0.063
 Acute ischemic limb (yes or no) 3.607 1.965 6.620 <0.001 1.773 0.781 4.023 0.171 1.173 0.497 2.773 0.715
 Rutherford classification (IV, V or VI) 1.809 1.051 3.114 0.032 1.839 0.978 3.457 0.059 1.537 0.830 2.846 0.172
Cardiac-related mortality at one year
 NLR as a continuous variable a 1.025 1.004 1.047 0.021 1.027 0.998 1.057 0.073
 NLR ≥ 8 vs. < 8 a 5.924 2.609 13.450 <0.001 5.286 2.075 13.47 <0.001
 Age (years) 1.031 0.993 1.071 0.107 1.015 0.975 1.056 0.464 1.015 0.973 1.059 0.482
 Male sex 0.693 0.315 1.527 0.363 0.539 0.222 1.308 0.172 0.577 0.243 1.370 0.212
 Body mass index (kg/m2) 0.940 0.846 1.044 0.247 0.945 0.845 1.057 0.352 0.942 0.846 1.049 0.277
 Smoking (yes or no) 1.113 0.561 2.207 0.759
 Hypertension (yes or no) 0.612 0.278 1.349 0.223
 Heart rate (beats per minute) 1.039 1.017 1.062 0.001 1.030 1.006 1.055 0.014 1.024 1.001 1.049 0.045
 Alanine transaminase (IU/L) 1.019 1.007 1.031 0.002 1.009 0.995 1.024 0.199 1.008 0.994 1.022 0.278
 Acute ischemic limb (yes or no) 3.367 1.401 8.088 0.007 1.740 0.589 5.139 0.316 1.024 0.327 3.203 0.968
 Rutherford classification (IV, V or VI) 1.001 0.475 2.110 0.997 1.108 0.486 2.527 0.807 0.899 0.404 2.012 0.795
Major adverse cardiac events at one year
 NLR as a continuous variable a 1.014 0.990 1.038 0.267 1.007 0.974 1.041 0.681
 NLR ≥ 8 vs. < 8 a 2.503 1.290 4.858 0.007 1.864 0.858 4.049 0.116
 Age (years) 1.012 0.981 1.043 0.459 0.993 0.960 1.026 0.665 0.993 0.960 1.027 0.694
 Male sex 0.766 0.394 1.490 0.432 0.628 0.311 1.268 0.194 0.609 0.302 1.230 0.167
 Body mass index (kg/m2) 0.942 0.864 1.027 0.176 0.933 0.851 1.023 0.142 0.933 0.851 1.023 0.139
 Smoking (yes or no) 1.472 0.881 2.458 0.140
 Hypertension (yes or no) 0.741 0.377 1.457 0.385
 Heart rate (beats per minute) 1.025 1.007 1.043 0.005 1.027 1.007 1.049 0.009 1.025 1.005 1.046 0.017
 Alanine transaminase (IU/L) 1.008 0.997 1.020 0.147
 Acute ischemic limb (yes or no) 2.381 1.115 5.085 0.025 2.324 0.976 5.531 0.057 1.799 0.709 4.566 0.217
 Rutherford classification (IV, V or VI) 1.033 0.561 1.903 0.917 1.097 0.577 2.085 0.777 1.015 0.529 1.945 0.965
Major adverse limb events at one year
 NLR as a continuous variable a 1.012 0.987 1.038 0.346 0.998 0.965 1.031 0.897
 NLR ≥ 6 vs. < 6 a 3.286 1.601 6.746 0.001 2.804 1.292 6.088 0.009
 Age (years) 0.977 0.950 1.004 0.097 0.952 0.921 0.985 0.004 0.956 0.924 0.990 0.012
 Male sex 1.247 0.634 2.455 0.522 1.376 0.672 2.819 0.382 1.350 0.655 2.783 0.416
 Body mass index (kg/m2) 0.955 0.876 1.040 0.288 0.917 0.836 1.007 0.069 0.924 0.840 1.016 0.104
 Smoking (yes or no) 1.052 0.570 1.941 0.872
 Hypertension (yes or no) 0.806 0.404 1.610 0.541
 Heart rate (beats per minute) 0.998 0.979 1.017 0.816
 Alanine transaminase (IU/L) 1.001 0.987 1.016 0.852
 Acute ischemic limb (yes or no) 0.830 0.292 2.355 0.726 0.725 0.210 2.498 0.610 0.506 0.143 1.786 0.290
 Rutherford classification (IV, V or VI) 3.938 2.101 7.382 <0.001 5.346 2.531 11.291 <0.001 4.429 2.087 9.400 <0.001
In-hospital mortality
 NLR as a continuous variable a 1.012 0.965 1.061 0.626
 NLR ≥ 5 vs. < 5 a 0.649 0.174 2.418 0.519
 Age (years) 0.992 0.947 1.040 0.752
 Male sex 0.421 0.147 1.207 0.108
 Body mass index (kg/m2) 1.050 0.898 1.227 0.542
 Smoking (yes or no) 1.308 0.440 3.892 0.629
 Hypertension (yes or no) 1.074 0.404 2.861 0.886
 Heart rate (beats per minute) 0.999 0.981 1.018 0.954
 Alanine transaminase (IU/L) 0.997 0.985 1.010 0.660
 Acute ischemic limb (yes or no) 0.664 0.253 1.746 0.407
 Rutherford stages (IV, V or VI) 1.374 0.670 2.816 0.386
 White blood count 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.134
 Neutrophils 0.986 0.938 1.036 0.574
 Lymphocytes 1.042 0.958 1.134 0.339
Open in a new tab

a NLR as a continuous variable and NLR as a binary variable were not simultaneously adjusted in multivariate logistic regression analyses. cHR = crude hazard ratio; aHR = adjusted hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.

After we adjusted for confounders in the multivariate logistic regression analyses, each incremental increase in NLR was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 1.028, 95% CI: 1.008–1.049, P = 0.007) and cardiac-related mortality (adjusted HR: 1.027, 95% CI: 0.998–1.057, P = 0.073), but there was no significant association between NLR and either MACE or MALE. NLR ≥ 8 and NLR < 8 were significantly associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 3.599, 95% CI: 1.818–7.123, P < 0.001) and cardiac-related mortality (adjusted HR: 5.286, 95% CI: 2.075–13.47, P < 0.001) but not MACE. NLR ≥ 6 and NLR < 6 were significantly associated with MALE (adjusted HR: 2.804, 95% CI: 1.292–6.088, P = 0.009) (Table 2). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrating the incidence of the study outcomes are shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier curves show that the risks of one-year all-cause (A) and cardiac-related (B) mortality, MACE (C), MALE (D), and in-hospital mortality were significantly higher in CLI patients with NLR ≥ 8 than in those with NLR < 8.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Discussion

In the present study, we show that elevated NLR was associated with one-year all-cause and cardiac-related mortality in patients with CLI but was not associated with one-year MACE or MALE. The associations between the NLR and our study outcomes can be clinically explained by the functions of neutrophils and lymphocytes in the human immune system. The percentage of white blood cells accounted for by neutrophils increases as the immune response activates against bacterial infection in CLI patients with sepsis; a higher neutrophil ratio indicates a stronger inflammatory response and is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with LEAD [15]. Lymphocytes play a role in adaptive immunity, and a lower lymphocyte ratio was found to indicate a lower survival probability in previous studies of patients with sepsis [16]. In our study, patients with a lower lymphocytes ratio were relatively immunocompromised and predisposed to all-cause mortality resulting from CLI-induced sepsis. In addition, experimental evidence has shown that lymphocytes activate and modify ischemia-reperfusion injury and wound healing [17]. Besides, the patients with severe physiologic stresses such as cardiogenic shock or heart failure would have elevated NLR. As mentioned above, the NLR is an inflammatory biomarker and a biomarker of poor wound healing in patients with CLI that is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. Statistically, the neutrophil ratio was positively associated and the lymphocyte ratio was inversely associated with all-cause mortality. As it considers both the neutrophil and the lymphocyte ratios with regard for all-cause mortality, the NLR is a more powerful predictor of all-cause mortality than using wither the neutrophil or lymphocyte ratio alone. The CLI patients had high mortality, and an NLR ratio can be used as a simple predictor of all-cause mortality independent of the Rutherford stages and the presence of acute limb ischemia. Therefore, we think that the patients with NLR < 8 should receive aggressive endovascular treatment, even catheter-directed thrombolysis, to improve survival probability and limb salvage. On the contrary, the patient with NLR ≥ 8 undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty still had high mortality due to inflammation and sepsis, although they received advanced antibiotic treatment and wound debridement. In this condition, surgical intervention such as bypass surgery or amputation might be the other therapeutic choice for patients with NLR ≥ 8.

A strength of our study is that we report comprehensive outcomes, including MACE. All-cause mortality has been reported in many studies [12, 18–21], cardiac morality in only a few studies [12, 19], and amputation in only a few studies [12, 18, 20, 21]; however, no study has previously reported MACE and MALE in patients with CLI or stable LEAD with regard for the NLR. The best cut-off for NLR, as determined by receiver operating characteristic curves, was eight in the present study, but this cut-off for NLR is not consistent with previous studies, in which it has also not been universal and ranges from three to five [12, 13, 18–21]. Spark et al. [12] previously reported that NLR ≥ 5.25 vs. NLR < 5.25 was associated with all-cause mortality, and an NLR cut-off of 5.25 was further validated in the study by Chan et al. [19] Notably, the study by Spark et al. [12] enrolled patients with Rutherford stages IV and V but not Rutherford stage VI, and Chan et al. [19] enrolled only one patient (less than 1%) with Rutherford stage VI. In the study by Erturk et al. [13], the NLR cut-off was even lower, at three, because more than sixty percent of the patients were at Rutherford stages III and IV. The major differences between our and other studies are related to the study populations; compared to previous investigators who enrolled patients with peripheral artery diseases and weaker inflammatory responses, we enrolled CLI patients with stronger inflammatory responses [13, 20]. In other words, the neutrophil ratio in our patients indicates a stronger inflammatory response, whereas patients in the other study had weaker inflammation [12]. In studies enrolling patients with either CLI or stable LEAD [20], the cut-off for NLR may be reduced by patients with stable LEAD, and the resulting lower NLR threshold may be unable to adequately stratify CLI patients with higher cardiovascular risks. We conducted the present study by enrolling only CLI patients while excluding patients with stable LEAD to make our study population homogeneous, and we therefore suggest that an NLR cut-off of eight could be used in CLI patients to evaluate the risk of all-cause mortality in future studies.

The NLR value increased with higher Rutherford stages in the present study, consistent with a previous study by Bath et al. [20]. Another study also showed that disease severity and the values of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein significantly increased across tertiles of NLR in patients with lower limb arteriosclerosis obliterans [21]. NLR, as a biomarker of the inflammatory response and disease severity, has been proposed to contribute to mortality in CLI patients, but NLR as a continuous variable was not associated with MALE in the present study. The NLR was also associated with the complexity of CLI-related arteries, and atherothrombosis has also been shown to be an additional risk factor for MALE in patients with CLI [22, 23]. Because CLI patients had increased platelet activation at baseline than was found in healthy subjects [24], the platelet to lymphocyte ratio may be a better predictor of incident MALEs in CLI patients [18].

A weakness of our study is that we found that the prescription of medication for CLI patients was relatively low at baseline, including the use of statin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. Additionally, the all-cause mortality rate was as high at approximately 25.4%, and the rate of MALE was 17.3%. A meta-analysis that included thirteen studies showed that the rates of all-cause mortality and MALE were both 22% in the natural history of untreated CLI patients [25]. Another retrospective cohort study showed that four-year mortality was significantly higher among the subgroups at 37.7%, 52.2%, and 63.5% in Rutherford stages IV, V, and VI, respectively; while the four-year rates of amputation were 12.1%, 35.3%, and 67.3% for Rutherford classification IV, V, and VI, respectively [26]. The REACH registry showed that statin use was significantly associated with a decreased risk of mortality in patients with artherothrombosis [23]. Although the present study was an all-comer study, the guideline-direct medical therapy to patients at the stage of symptomatic or asymptomatic LEAD could be enhanced to improve clinical outcomes before these patients present with CLI. Given that statins have anti-inflammatory properties and pleiotropic effects on reducing mortality and MALE, future studies should investigate the effect of statin intensity on changes in NLR. Second, the prescription rate of anti-platelet agents was sixty percent at baseline in the CLI patients, while the rate at discharge was 97%. The contemporary guidelines suggest that an anti-platelet, such as aspirin or clopidogrel, is strongly recommended in patients with LEAD [27]. Although we prescribed anti-platelet agents to CLI patients according to the affordable rule of the National Health Insurance program, mortality and MALE remained high. The high incidence of mortality and MALE in the CLI patients in the present and previous studies indicates that the use of only anti-platelet agents might not be good enough to prevent future cardiovascular events. A previous double randomized controlled trial enrolled patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases and showed that compared to aspirin alone, low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced MALE with the trade-off of bleeding complications [28]. The VOYAGER study randomized patients with LEAD undergoing revascularization to a low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin group or an aspirin alone group and found that randomization to low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with the significantly lower incidence of MACE and MALE than randomization to aspirin alone [28]; the trade-off of an increased risk of major bleeding was also reported in the VOYAGER study. Regarding the net clinical benefit of reduced MALE and increased bleeding complications, we propose that NLR ≥ 8 may be useful for stratifying CLI patients with a high risk of mortality who may benefit from additional low-dose rivaroxaban in addition to aspirin. Another limitation is that we investigated the association between NLR and several outcomes, but the best cut-off of NLR was not consistent across all study outcomes in our own study. NLR ≥ 8 vs. < 8 was associated with an increased risk of mortality but not MALE, whereas NLR ≥ 6 vs. NLR < 6 was associated with the incidence of MALE. Given that it would be difficult to apply multiple cut-off values in a clinical setting and difficult to validate them externally in other studies, we suggest that a cut-off of NLR ≥ 8 vs. < 8 may be adequate for identifying CLI patients at a risk of high mortality. Other predictors, such as the platelet-lymphocyte ratio, should also be investigated regarding the incidence of MALE in CLI patients. In addition, a systematic review and meta-analysis could be performed to determine the best cut-off value for NLR among patients with LEAD with various risks.

We previously reported that elevated serum uric acid was associated with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, left ventricular hypertrophy, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in various study populations such as apparently healthy individuals, patients with cardiometabolic abnormalities, and patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [29–32]. However, we did not find a significant association between hyperuricemia and MACE and MALE in the present study. The possible explanation may be that serum uric acid serves as weaker inflammation, and it, therefore, did not play a role in CLI patients with stronger inflammatory responses.

Conclusions

We show that CLI patients with a higher NLR have significantly higher incidences of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality and MALE at one year. Each increment in NLR was associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cardiac-related mortality but not MALE. NLR ≥ 8 vs. NLR < 8 can be used to predict mortality in CLI patients.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Baseline and procedural characteristics and laboratory data in patients with critical limb ischemia.

Values were expressed as number and (standard deviation) or number and percentage. CAD = coronary artery disease; NYHA = New York Heart Association; BP = blood pressure; NLR = neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB = angiotensin receptor blockers.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, tif)
S2 Table. Baseline and procedural characteristics and laboratory data in patients with critical limb ischemia.

Values were expressed as number and (standard deviation) or number and percentage. CAD = coronary artery disease; NYHA = New York Heart Association; BP = blood pressure; NLR = neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB = angiotensin receptor blockers.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (1.8MB, tif)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Faria SS, Fernandes PC Jr., Silva MJ, Lima VC, Fontes W, Freitas-Junior R, et al. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio: a narrative review. Ecancermedicalscience. 2016;10: 702. 10.3332/ecancer.2016.702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Li X, Dai D, Chen B, Tang H, Xie X, Wei W. The value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for response and prognostic effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer. 2018;9: 861–871. 10.7150/jca.23367 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Silvestre-Roig C, Braster Q, Ortega-Gomez A, Soehnlein O. Neutrophils as regulators of cardiovascular inflammation. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020;17: 327–340. 10.1038/s41569-019-0326-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Albrengues J, Shields MA, Ng D, Park CG, Ambrico A, Poindexter ME, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps produced during inflammation awaken dormant cancer cells in mice. Science. 2018;361: eaao4227. 10.1126/science.aao4227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Izaks GJ, Remarque EJ, Becker SV, Westendorp RG. Lymphocyte count and mortality risk in older persons. The Leiden 85-plus study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51: 1461–1465. 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51467.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Angkananard T, Anothaisintawee T, McEvoy M, Attia J, Thakkinstian A. Neutrophil lymphocyte ratio and cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BioMed Res Int. 2018;2018: 2703518. 10.1155/2018/2703518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bhat TM, Afari ME, Garcia LA. Neutrophil lymphocyte ratio in peripheral vascular disease: a review. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2016;14: 871–875. 10.1586/14779072.2016.1165091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Song SY, Zhao XX, Rajah G, Hua C, Kang RJ, Han YP, et al. Clinical significance of baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke: an updated meta-analysis. Front Neurol. 2019;10: 1032. 10.3389/fneur.2019.01032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhang S, Diao J, Qi C, Jin J, Li L, Gao X, et al. Predictive value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in patients with acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018;18: 75. 10.1186/s12872-018-0812-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Teperman J, Carruthers D, Guo Y, Barnett MP, Harris AA, Sedlis SP, et al. Relationship between neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and severity of lower extremity peripheral artery disease. Int J Cardiol. 2017;228: 201–204. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Aykan AC, Hatem E, Kalaycioglu E, Karabay CY, Zehir R, Gokdeniz T, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio may be a marker of peripheral artery disease complexity. Anatol J Cardiol. 2016;16: 497–503. 10.5152/AnatolJCardiol.2015.6240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Spark JI, Sarveswaran J, Blest N, Charalabidis P, Asthana S. An elevated neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio independently predicts mortality in chronic critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2010;52: 632–636. 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.03.067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Erturk M, Cakmak HA, Surgit O, Celik O, Aksu HU, Akgul O, 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. 10.1016/j.jjcc.2014.02.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Shishehbor MH, White CJ, Gray BH, Menard MT, Lookstein R, Rosenfield K, et al. Critical limb ischemia: an expert statement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68: 2002–2015. 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.04.071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Signorelli SS, Fiore V, Malaponte G. Inflammation and peripheral arterial disease: the value of circulating biomarkers (Review). Int J Mol Med. 2014;33: 777–783. 10.3892/ijmm.2014.1657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.De Pablo R, Monserrat J, Prieto A, Alvarez-Mon M. Role of circulating lymphocytes in patients with sepsis. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014: 671087. 10.1155/2014/671087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hofmann U, Frantz S. Role of lymphocytes in myocardial injury, healing, and remodeling after myocardial infarction. Circ Res. 2015;116: 354–367. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.304072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tasoglu I, Sert D, Colak N, Uzun A, Songur M, Ecevit A. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and the platelet-lymphocyte ratio predict the limb survival in critical limb ischemia. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2014;20: 645–650. 10.1177/1076029613475474 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chan C, Puckridge P, Ullah S, Delaney C, Spark JI. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic marker of outcome in infrapopliteal percutaneous interventions for critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60: 661–668. 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.03.277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bath J, Smith JB, Kruse RL, Vogel TR. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio predicts disease severity and outcome after lower extremity procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72: 622–631. 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.10.094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ye M, Qian X, Guo X, Wang H, Ni Q, Zhao Y, et al. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-lymphocyte ratio predict severity and prognosis of lower limb arteriosclerosis obliterans. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;64: 221–227. 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kinlay S. Management of critical limb ischemia. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9: e001946. 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.001946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bhatt DL, Eagle KA, Ohman EM, Hirsch AT, Goto S, Mahoney EM, et al. Comparative determinants of 4-year cardiovascular event rates in stable outpatients at risk of or with atherothrombosis. JAMA. 2010;304: 1350–1357. 10.1001/jama.2010.1322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wisman PP, Teraa M, De Borst GJ, Verhaar MC, Roest M, Moll FL. Baseline platelet activation and reactivity in patients with critical limb ischemia. PLoS One. 2015;10: e0131356. 10.1371/journal.pone.0131356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dabrh AMA, Steffen MW, Undavalli C, Asi N, Wang Z, Elamin MB, et al. The natural history of untreated severe or critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62: 1642–1651.e1643. 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.07.065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Reinecke H, Unrath M, Freisinger E, Bunzemeier H, Meyborg M, Luders F, et al. Peripheral arterial disease and critical limb ischaemia: still poor outcomes and lack of guideline adherence. Eur Heart J. 2015;36: 932–938. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kithcart AP, Beckman JA. ACC/AHA versus ESC guidelines for diagnosis and management of peripheral artery disease: JACC guideline comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72: 2789–2801. 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Anand SS, Bosch J, Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Diaz R, Widimsky P, et al. Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable peripheral or carotid artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391: 219–229. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32409-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Liu CW, Chang WC, Lee CC, Chen KH, Wu YW, Hwang JJ. Hyperuricemia is associated with a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in military individuals. Mil Med. 2018;183: e391–e395. 10.1093/milmed/usy097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liu CW, Chen KH, Tseng CK, Chang WC, Wu YW, Hwang JJ. The dose-response effects of uric acid on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in healthy individuals. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;29: 30–38. 10.1016/j.numecd.2018.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Liu CW, Lin TC. Serum uric acid was an independent predictor of mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with Killip I other than Killip II-IV. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2017;9: 62–63. 10.15171/jcvtr.2017.10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Liu CW, Chen JC, Tseng GS, Chen KH, Hwang JJ, Yang WS, et al. Association between low-grade inflammation and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in patients with metabolic syndrome and hyperuricemia. Acta Cardiol Sin. 2020;36: 483–492. 10.6515/ACS.202009_36(5).20200406A [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Timir Paul

29 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-11099

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio associated with an increased risk of mortality in patients with critical limb ischemia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr.  Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Editor's comments:

Overall well written manuscript, 5 years data, overall low sample size due to CLI. Please address following comments:

- low extremity artery disease (LEAD)- would be lower extremity not low extremity.

-Please expand the clinical utility of this results, How we prevent mortality in CLI patients after checking NLR?

- although the strengths and limitations have been mentioned I suggest to write all limitations in one paragraph

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30th.  If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Timir Paul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Table S1 which you refer to in your text on page 8.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Very nice article and focus on important aspect of cardiology. I would like to know more about the NLR measurement, is it the first CBC or is it the hospitalization count average, pre and post intervention, follow up NLR ?... did the authors depend on just the initial NLR for their study. Also, would like to know if there was any other medical problems that cofound or affect the ratio ?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 May 27;16(5):e0252030. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252030.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

5 May 2021

Editor's comments:

Overall well written manuscript, 5 years data, overall low sample size due to CLI. Please address following comments:

- low extremity artery disease (LEAD)- would be lower extremity not low extremity.

Response to the editor:

We replaced "low extremity" with "lower extremity" (page 4, line 60.) Thanks for the editor's comment.

-Please expand the clinical utility of this results, How we prevent mortality in CLI patients after checking NLR?

Response to the editor:

The CLI patients had high mortality, and an NLR ratio can be used as a simple predictor of all-cause mortality independent of the Rutherford stages and the presence of acute limb ischemia. Therefore, we think that the patients with NLR < 8 should receive aggressive endovascular treatment, even catheter-directed thrombolysis, to improve survival probability and limb salvage. On the contrary, the patient with NLR ≥ 8 undergoing percutaneous transluminal angioplasty still had high mortality due to inflammation and sepsis, although they received advanced antibiotic treatment and wound debridement. In this condition, surgical intervention such as bypass surgery or amputation might be the other therapeutic choice for patients with NLR ≥ 8. We added this paragraph in the first paragraph of the discussions. (page 20, line 198-206)

- although the strengths and limitations have been mentioned I suggest to write all limitations in one paragraph

Response to the editor:

We combined the limitations into one paragraph as the editor's comment, including "A weakness of our study……" (page 22 line 240) and "another limitation……" (page 24 line 272).

Reviewer #1:

(1)Very nice article and focus on important aspect of cardiology. I would like to know more about the NLR measurement, is it the first CBC or is it the hospitalization count average, pre and post intervention, follow up NLR ?

Response to reviewer #1:

Thanks for the review's appreciation. We measured complete blood count and white blood cell differential at our emergency department before the patients received percutaneous transluminal angioplasty.

We added a sentence in the second paragraph of the method section. "We measured complete blood count and white blood cell differential at our emergency department before the patients received percutaneous transluminal angioplasty." (page 5 line80-81)

Reviewer #1:

(2) ... did the authors depend on just the initial NLR for their study. Also, would like to know if there was any other medical problems that cofound or affect the ratio ?

Response to reviewer #1:

As we described from page 19, line 183 to page 20, line 190, "The percentage of white blood cells accounted for by neutrophils increases as the immune response activates against bacterial infection in CLI patients with sepsis; a higher neutrophil ratio indicates a stronger inflammatory response and is associated with a poor prognosis in patients with LEAD [15]. Lymphocytes play a role in adaptive immunity, and a lower lymphocyte ratio was found to indicate a lower survival probability in previous studies of patients with sepsis [16]. In our study, patients with a lower lymphocytes ratio were relatively immunocompromised and predisposed to all-cause mortality resulting from CLI-induced sepsis." Therefore, inflammatory response induced by both sepsis and atherosclerotic plaques can increase neutrophil counts. Besides, the patients with severe stresses such as cardiogenic shock or heart failure would have elevated NLR.

We added a sentence in the first paragraph of the discussions. "The patients with severe physiologic stresses such as cardiogenic shock or heart failure would have elevated NLR." (page 20 line 191-193)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to the editor and reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file. (18.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Timir Paul

10 May 2021

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio associated with an increased risk of mortality in patients with critical limb ischemia

PONE-D-21-11099R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Timir Paul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All comments were appropriately addressed. 

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Timir Paul

17 May 2021

PONE-D-21-11099R1

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio associated with an increased risk of mortality in patients with critical limb ischemia

Dear Dr. Liu:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Timir Paul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Baseline and procedural characteristics and laboratory data in patients with critical limb ischemia.

    Values were expressed as number and (standard deviation) or number and percentage. CAD = coronary artery disease; NYHA = New York Heart Association; BP = blood pressure; NLR = neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB = angiotensin receptor blockers.

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, tif)
    S2 Table. Baseline and procedural characteristics and laboratory data in patients with critical limb ischemia.

    Values were expressed as number and (standard deviation) or number and percentage. CAD = coronary artery disease; NYHA = New York Heart Association; BP = blood pressure; NLR = neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB = angiotensin receptor blockers.

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (1.8MB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the editor and reviewer.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (18.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES