Skip to main content
The Journal of Tehran University Heart Center logoLink to The Journal of Tehran University Heart Center
. 2021 Oct;16(4):147–155. doi: 10.18502/jthc.v16i4.8600

Association between Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and the Systemic Inflammatory Immunologic Index and the Angiographic SYNTAX Score and the TIMI Flow Grade in Acute STEMI: A Cohort Study

Ali Rostami 1, Arezou Tajlil 1, Ahmad Separham 1, Bahram Sohrabi 1, Leili Pourafkari 1, Neda Roshanravan 1, Naser Aslanabadi 1, Mojtaba Ziaee 1, Sina Mashayekhi 1, Samad Ghaffari 1,*
PMCID: PMC9308885  PMID: 35935551

Abstract

Background: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), it is essential to determine the complexity of coronary lesions on presentation and predict the risk of no-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Given that inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, using inflammatory indices might be helpful in this setting.

Methods: This prospective cohort study recruited 200 consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent pPCI. The presentation neutrophil-to-lymphocyte-ratio (NLR) and the systemic inflammatory immunologic index (SII), calculated using the formula platelets × neutrophils/lymphocytes, were recorded. Study outcomes included the SYNTAX score and the TIMI flow grade before and after pPCI. The associations between the NLR and the SII and the study outcomes were investigated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results: Among 200 patients at a mean age of 59.85±11.23 years, 160 (80.0%) were male and 40 (20.0%) were female. The NLR and SII values were not statistically different between the 3 SYNTAX subgroups. While the mean NLR and SII values were similar between the patients with preprocedural TIMI flow grades 0/1 and 2/3, the mean NLR and SII were significantly lower in the group with a postprocedural TIMI flow grade 3. After adjustments for age and sex, the NLR and the SII were independent predictors of postprocedural no-reflow.

Conclusion: In patients with STEMI, the presentation NLR and SII are useful for predicting the risk of no-reflow after pPCI. However, the NLR and the SII are not predictors of the SYNTAX score and the preprocedural TIMI flow grade.

Key Words: Myocardial infarction, No-reflow phenomenon, Coronary artery disease, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Neutrophils, Lymphocytes, Blood platelets

Introduction

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the standard therapeutic method for the management of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).   1  Nonetheless, no-reflow in the infarct-related artery (IRA) may compromise the results and lead to adverse complications and mortality.        2  Preprocedural factors, including preprocedural IRA patency and coronary lesion complexity, may be predictive of the outcomes in patients.        3  The SYNTAX score is a scoring system by which the complexity of patients’ coronary lesions and possible responses to angiographic interventions are evaluated.4-6 The determination of preprocedural IRA patency and SYNTAX score needs coronary artery angiography, hence the significance of finding prognostic factors that are readily available on patient presentation.

The pathophysiological mechanisms of the development and underlying causes of atherosclerosis for the occurrence of an acute episode of MI, including STEMI), involve complex pathways of systemic and local inflammatory, immunologic, and thrombotic systems. Consequently, there is increasing interest in incorporating factors of these pathways into risk stratification models of patients with a diverse range of cardiovascular diseases.7, 8 Some investigations have assessed the predictive role of these inflammatory markers for the complexity of coronary lesions, IRA patency before primary PCI, and the no-reflow rate after primary PCI in IRA. Nevertheless, studies exclusively conducted on patients with STEMI have demonstrated varying results for each inflammatory component.9-12 On the other hand, there is also a newly investigated index, termed “the systemic inflammatory immunologic index (SII)”, which has been used in patients with various neoplastic diseases. This index combines the 3 main circulating blood components: neutrophils, lymphocytes, and platelets.13-17 Still, the role of the SII in patients with cardiovascular diseases has yet to be elucidated.        18 

Accordingly, we designed this prospectively recruited cohort study on patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI to investigate the association between the presentation neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the SII and our study outcomes, consisting of the SYNTAX score5, 19 and preprocedural and postprocedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grades.   20 

Methods

This prospective observational cohort study recruited 200 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of STEMI who underwent primary PCI in the first 6 hours of symptom onset in our cardiovascular hospital. Patients with a history of cancer, hepatic cirrhosis, autoimmune diseases, hematologic disorders, and recent infectious diseases were excluded. Pregnant patients, patients with severe valvular diseases, and patients who had received thrombolytic or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were also excluded from this study. The institutional ethics and research committee reviewed and approved the study protocol. The descriptive nature of the study precluded the necessity of obtaining informed consent; however, complete patient privacy was protected in all steps of the study. All the procedures performed were in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

A trained physician recorded the patients’ demographics, past medical history, laboratory data, and angiographic findings in prepared questionnaires. A different trained interventional cardiologist reviewed the digital angiographic recording.

Venous blood samples were collected via standard venipuncture procedures on patient admission to the emergency department. Blood samples were collected in tubes containing potassium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as an anticoagulant and were analyzed by the central laboratory of the hospital with an automated and daily-calibrated Coulter CBCH1 counter. The total white blood cell (WBC), neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet counts and hemoglobin levels were documented from laboratory reports. The NLR was calculated as the absolute neutrophil count per mm3 of blood divided by the absolute lymphocyte count per mm3 of blood. The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) was determined as the platelet count per mm3 divided by the lymphocyte count per mm3. The SII was calculated from peripheral platelet (×109/L), neutrophil (×109/L), and lymphocyte (×109/L) blood counts by using the formula SII= platelets × neutrophils/lymphocytes.   14 

Primary PCI was performed via the standard femoral approach with a 7F guiding catheter. With the aid of the digital records of angiographic procedures for each patient, the SYNTAX score and the TIMI flow grade   20  before and after primary PCI were evaluated by an experienced interventional cardiologist, who was blind to the clinical and laboratory findings of the patients. Preprocedural IRA patency was defined as a TIMI flow grade 2 or 3 (TIMI-2/3). Postprocedural no-reflow was defined as a TIMI flow grade of 0 or 1 or 2 (TIMI-0/1/2). The Syntax score   5  was calculated by using the standard SYNTAX scoring algorithm by the same interventional cardiologist. The patients were classified into 3 groups based on the SYNTAX score: the low SYNTAX score group (≤22), the intermediate SYNTAX score group (23–32), and the high SYNTAX score group (>32).        19 

The data were analyzed by IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 22.0. Categorical variables were stated as frequencies and percentages and compared by using the χ2 or the Fisher test as appropriate. Continuous variables were stated as the mean ± the standard deviation or the median 25% to 75% interquartile range (IQR25-75%). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to determine normal distribution. Continuous variables with a normal distribution were compared between the groups by using the independent t test or the ANOVA test, and continuous variables without a normal distribution were compared by using the Mann–Whitney test or the Kruskal–Wallis test as appropriate. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted, and the area under the curve (AUC), as well as the cutoff values, was calculated. Based on the cutoff points, the patients were divided into 2 groups and compared. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the independent role of the study variables on the study outcomes. Two-tailed significance tests were reported, and a P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The study population consisted of 200 patients, including 160 men (80.0%), at a mean of 59.85±11.23 years. The mean SYNTAX score was 18.71±8.66. Regarding the distribution of the SYNTAX score subgroups, low, intermediate, and high SYNTAX scores were present in 63.0%, 31.0%, and 6.0% of the study patients, respectively. Preprocedural TIMI-2/3 was reported in 43 patients (21.5%) and postprocedural TIMI-0/1/2 in 34 patients (17.0%). The mean NLR was 4.65±3.62, and the median (IQR25-75%) NLR was 3.62 (2.0–5.67). The mean PLR was 125.10±81.66, and the median (IQR25-75%) PLR was 107.70 (75.37–153.04). The mean SII was 1022.96±921.51, and the median (IQR25-75%) SII was 776.60 (458.87–1267.33).

Table 1 presents the comparisons of baseline characteristics and angiographic and hematological findings between the 3 SYNTAX subgroups. Demographic information and cardiovascular risk factors were similar in the 3 subgroups. The left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly different in the 3 subgroups (38.97±7.08% vs 35.89±7.87% vs 35.00%±5.64% in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk subgroups, respectively; P=0.010).

Table 1.

Comparison of the study variables according to the subgroups of the SYNTAX score*

SYNTAX Score Subgroups

Low Moderate High P
Age (y) 58.46±10.90 61.98±10.91 63.50±14.59 0.066
Sex (male) 101 (80.2) 49 (79.0) 10 (83.3)
Diabetes 19 (15.1) 14 (22.6) 4 (33.3) 0.181
Hypertension 51 (40.5) 25 (40.3) 6 (50.0) 0.807
Hyperlipidemia 8 (6.3) 3 (4.8) 1 (8.3) 0.864
Smoking 50 (39.7) 30 (48.4) 4 (33.3) 0.430
Family history 10 (7.9) 1(1.6) 1 (8.3) 0.261
Ejection Fraction (%) 38.97±7.08 35.89±7.87 35.00±5.64 0.010
White blood cell (109/L) 10.02±3.08 10.83±3.86 14.16±4.47 <0.001
Neutrophil (106/L) 7300.29±2951.02 8040.12±3671.20 10507.93±4383.68 0.004
Lymphocyte (106/L) 2212.72±1237.29 2188.59±1117.11 2646.27±1173.62 0.462
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 14.71±2.01 14.86±2.35 14.79±1.53 0.900
Platelets (109/L) 211.95±64.19 224.24±67.14 264.92±62.83 0.021
NLR 3.35 (2.00-5.43) 4.17 (2.00-6.67) 4.42(2.17-6.21) 0.710
PLR 103.43 (77.17-148.57) 112.28 (68.78-162.18) 102.37 (69.10-153.57) 0.828
SII 693.93 (441.18-1128.30) 900.89 (390.86-1460.0) 826.67 (594.61-1786.42) 0.251
Location of Myocardial Infarction
    Anterior MI 65 (51.6) 43 (69.4) 9 (75.0)
    Inferior MI 61 (48.4%) 19 (30.6) 3 (25.0) 0.033
Number of Involved Arteries
    Single-vessel disease 63 (50.0) 16 (25.8) 0
    Double-vessel disease 50 (39.7) 23 (37.1) 4 (33.3)
    Triple-vessel 13 (10.3) 23 (37.1) 8 (66.7) <0.001
Infarct-Related Artery
    LMCA 0 2 (3.2) 0
    LAD 66 (52.4) 41 (66.1) 9 (75.0)
    LCX 15 (11.9) 7 (11.3) 0
    RCA 45 (35.7) 12 (19.4) 3 (25.0) 0.070
Hospital mortality 2 (1.6) 3 (4.8) 1(8.3) 0.252

LAD, Left anterior descending; LCX, Left circumflex artery; LMCA, Left main coronary artery; MI, Myocardial infarction; NLR, Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention; PLR, Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; RCA, Right coronary artery; SII, Systemic immune inflammation index; TIMI, Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction; WBC, White blood cell

*

Date are presented as mean±SD, IQR25-75%, or n (%)

Patients in the higher-risk SYNTAX score group were more likely to experience anterior MI than inferior MI (51.6% vs 69.4% vs 75.0% in the low, intermediate, and high-risk subgroups, respectively; P=0.033). The mean WBC count was significantly different between the 3 subgroups. The post hoc analysis revealed significant differences in the WBC count between the high-risk and moderate-risk groups, as well as the high-risk and low-risk groups. The neutrophil count and the platelet count were also significantly different between the 3 SYNTAX subgroups (Table 1). The post hoc analysis also demonstrated that the difference in the platelet count was significant between the high-risk and low-risk SYNTAX subgroups. The post hoc analysis on the neutrophil count showed a significant difference between the high-risk and moderate-risk SYNTAX subgroups, as well as the high-risk and low-risk SYNTAX groups. The NLR, PLR, and SII values were not statistically different between the 3 SYNTAX risk subgroups (Table 1).

As is presented in Table 2, there were no differences between the patients with a preprocedural TIMI-0/1 and those with a preprocedural TIMI-2/3 regarding the baseline characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, angiographic findings, and hematological values. The median (IQR25-75%) NLR was 3.81 (2.00–5.63) in the group with a preprocedural TIMI-0/1 and 3.33 (2.11–5.71) in the group with a preprocedural TIMI-2/3 (P=0.892). The median PLR (IQR25-75%) was 99.67 (73.72–162.18) in the preprocedural TIMI-0/1 group and 113.72 (77.40–137.16) in the preprocedural TIMI-2/3 group (P=0.421). The median SII (IQR25-75%) was 805.0 (424.67–1280.00) in the preprocedural TIMI-0/1 group and 680.0 (483.24–1096.67) in the preprocedural TIMI-2/3 group (P=0.754).

Table 2.

Comparison of the study variables with regard to pre- and postprocedural TIMI flow grades*

Preprocedural TIMI Flow Grade


Postprocedural TIMI flow Grade

TIMI-0/1 TIMI-2/3 P value TIMI-0/1/2 TIMI-3 P
Age (y) 59.80±11.29 60.05±11.20 0.900 60.68±10.91 59.69±11.33 0.641
Sex (male) 126 (80.3) 34 (79.1) 0.863 24 (70.6) 136 (81.9) 0.132
Diabetes 28 (17.8) 9 (20.9) 0.643 8 (23.5) 29 (17.5) 0.407
Hypertension 62 (39.5) 20 (46.5) 0.407 17 (50.0) 65 (39.2) 0.242
Hyperlipidemia 9 (5.7) 3 (7.0) 0.761 4 (11.8) 8 (4.8) 0.120
Smoking 68 (43.3) 16 (37.2) 0.473 11 (32.4) 73 (44.0) 0.211
Family history 10 (6.4) 2 (4.7) 0.674 3 (8.8) 9 (5.4) 0.447
Ejection fraction (%) 37.36±7.33 39.30±7.53 0.127 35.74±7.60 38.19±7.31 0.077
Neutrophil (106/L) 7806.55±3370.46 7413.74±3332.85 0.403 9333.82±4088.11 7391.98±3100.32 0.008
Lymphocyte (106/L) 2274.76±1253.17 2072.40±957.28 0.436 2139.49±1097.84 2250.05±1217.90 0.645
WBC (109/L) 10.66±3.56 10.01±3.53 0.292 12.08±4.42 10.20±3.27 0.037
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 14.69±2.01 15.03±2.35 0.710 14.53±1.92 14.81±2.13 0.482
Platelet (109/L) 217.45±64.12 224.37±72.98 0.562 243.21±76.26 213.97±62.79 0.060
NLR 3.81(2.0-5.63) 3.33 (2.11-5.71) 0.892 4.72 (2.33-8.5) 3.50 (2.00-5.33) 0.036
PLR 99.67 (73.72-162.18) 113. 72 (77.4-137.16) 0.421 120.92 (71.92-182.92) 104.61 (75.46-145.74) 0.172
SII 805.0 (424.67-1280.0) 680.0 (483.24-1096.67) 0.754 973.95 (617.03-1608.70) 697.25 (408.25-1216.0) 0.010
Location of Myocardial Infarction
    Anterior
    Inferior
88 (56.1) 29 (67.4) 25 (73.5) 92 (55.4)
69 (43.9) 14 (32.6) 0.179 9 (26.5) 74 (44.6) 0.051
Number of Involved Vessels
    Single-vessel disease
    Double-vessel disease
    Triple-vessel     
    disease/LMCA
61 (38.9) 18 (41.9) 13 (38.2) 66 (39.8)
59 (37.6) 18 (41.9) 9 (26.5) 68 (41.0)
37 (23.6) 7 (16.3) 0.591 12 (35.3) 32 (19.3) 0.089
Culprit Vessel
    LMCA
    LAD
    LCX
    RCA
2 (1.3) 0 1 (2.9) 1 (0.6)
87 (55.4) 29 (67.4) 24 (70.6) 92 (55.4)
19 (12.1) 3 (7.0) 0 22 (13.3)
49 (31.2) 11 (25.6) 0.466 9 (26.5) 51 (30.7) 0.062
In-hospital mortality 6 (3.8) 0 0.193 2 (5.9) 4 (2.4) 0.280

TIMI, Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction; LAD, Left anterior descending; LCX, Left circumflex artery; LMCA, Left main coronary artery; MI, Myocardial infarction; NLR, Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention; PLR, Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; RCA, Right coronary artery; SII, Systemic immune inflammation index; WBC, White blood cell

*

Date are presented as mean±SD, IQR25-75%, or n (%)

As is presented in Table 2, demographic information, cardiovascular risk factors, and angiographic findings were not significantly different between the patients with postprocedural TIMI-0/1/2 and those with the complete postprocedural flow. However, the WBC count, the neutrophil count, the NLR, and the SII were all significantly higher in the group with a postprocedural TIMI-0/1/2. The median (IQR25-75%) NLR was 4.72 (2.33–8.50) in the group with a postprocedural TIMI-0/1/2 and 3.50 (2.00–5.33) in the group with the complete postprocedural flow (P=0.036). The median (IQR25-75%) SII was 973.95 (617.03–1608.70) in the group with a postprocedural TIMI-0/1/2 and 697.25 (408.25–1216.0) in the group with the complete postprocedural flow (P=0.010).

The ROC curve of the SII for the prediction of postprocedural no-reflow (TIMI-0/1/2) is depicted in Figure 1. The ROC analysis revealed a cutoff point of 458.87 for the SII with an AUC of 0.640 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54–0.74; P=0.010). An SII of greater than 458.87 had 94.12% sensitivity and 28.92% specificity in predicting the development of no-reflow after primary PCI.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

The image depicts the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the systemic inflammatory immunologic index (SII) for the prediction of postprocedural no-reflow.

Figure 2 illustrates the ROC curve of the NLR for the prediction of postprocedural no-reflow. The ROC analysis revealed a cutoff point of 7.08 for the NLR with an AUC of 0.615 (95% CI: 0.51–0.72; P=0.035). An NLR of greater than 7.08 had 41.18% sensitivity and 85.54% specificity in predicting the development of no-reflow after primary PCI.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

The image illustrates the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) for the prediction of postprocedural no-reflow.

Table 3 presents the comparisons of the study variables between the low and high NLR groups, as well as low and high SII groups. The prevalence of a postprocedural TIMI-0/1/2 was significantly higher than that of a postprocedural TIMI-3 in the high NLR group (12.6% vs 34.1%; odds ratio [OR], 3.60; 95% CI: 1.62 to 8.00; P=0.002). The analysis was repeated after adjustments for age and sex, which were previously reported as influential factors for the NLR in a healthy population. The results of the multivariate regression analysis revealed the independent role of the NLR in predicting postprocedural no-reflow (OR, 3.47; 95% CI: 1.55–7.76; P=0.002). The prevalence of a postprocedural TIMI-0/1/2 was significantly higher than that of a postprocedural TIMI-3 in the high SII group (4.0% vs 21.3%; OR, 6.51; 95% CI: 1.50–28.23; P=0.012). The results of the multivariate regression analysis after adjustments for age and sex revealed the independent role of t the SII in predicting postprocedural no-reflow (OR, 6.02; 95% CI: 1.37–26.41; P=0.017).

Table 3.

Comparison of the study variables based on the SII and NLR cutoff points*

NLR


SII
Low High P value Low High P
Age (y) 59.84±11.15 59.90±11.71 0.978 58.66±10.46 60.25±11.49 0.378
Ejection fraction (%) 38.02±6.91 36.83±9.07 0.437 39.40±6.67 37.23±7.56 0.073
Sex
    Male 130 (81.8) 30 (73.2) 47 (94.0) 113 (75.3)
    Female 29 (18.2) 11 (26.8) 0.314 3 (6.0) 37 (24.7) 0.008
Diabetes 26 (16.4) 11 (26.8) 0.189 9 (18.0) 28 (18.7) 0.916
Hypertension 60 (37.7) 22 (53.7) 0.095 15 (30.0) 67 (44.7) 0.097
Hyperlipidemia 8 (5.0) 4 (9.8) 0.443 2 (4.0) 10 (6.7) 0.734
Smoking 68 (42.8) 16 (39.0) 0.798 21 (42.0) 63 (42.0) 0.999
Family history 11 (6.9) 1 (2.4) 0.479 6 (12.0) 6 (4.0) 0.077
Anterior MI 92 (57.9) 25 (61.0) 29 (58.0) 88 (58.7)
Inferior MI 67 (42.1) 16 (39.0) 0.855 21 (42.0) 62 (41.3) 0.934
Number of involved Vessels
    Single-vessel disease 63 (39.6) 16 (39.0) 24 (48.0) 55 (36.7)
    Double-vessel disease 60 (37.7) 17 (41.5) 15 (30.0) 62 (41.3)
    Triple-vessel disease/LMCA 36 (22.6) 8 (19.5) 0.876 11 (22.0) 33 (22.0) 0.291
SYNTAX Score Group
    Low 100 (62.9) 26 (63.4%) 33 (66.0) 93 (62.0)
Moderate 50 (31.4) 12 (29.3) 16 (32.0) 46 (30.7)
    High 9 (5.7) 3 (7.3) 0.905 1 (2.0) 11 (7.3) 0.388
Hospital mortality 2 (1.3) 4 (9.8) 0.017 0 6 (4.0) 0.340
Before Primary PCI
    TIMI flow grade 2/3 34 (21.4) 9 (22.0) 9 (18.0) 34 (22.7)
    TIMI flow grade 0/1 125 (78.6) 32 (78.0) 0.937 41 (82.0) 116 (77.3) 0.619
After Primary PCI
    TIMI flow grade 0/1/2 20 (12.6) 14 (34.1) 2 (4.0) 32 (21.3)
    TIMI flow grade 3 139 (87.4) 27 (65.9) 0.002 48 (96.0) 118 (78.7) 0.002

SII, Systemic immune inflammation index; NLR, Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; LMCA, Left main coronary artery; MI, Myocardial infarction; PCI, Percutaneous coronary intervention; TIMI, Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction

*

Date are presented as mean±SD or n (%)

Discussion

According to the results of our study, in patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI, the presentation NLR and the presentation SII were both independently associated with the postprocedural TIMI flow. While the SII had a higher sensitivity for determining the postprocedural no-reflow, the NLR had a higher specificity for predicting no-reflow after primary PCI. In addition, the NLR and the SII were not linked with the SYNTAX score or the preprocedural TIMI flow.

In our study, patients with lower NLR values were more likely to experience complete blood flow after undergoing primary PCI in the setting of STEMI. Although most studies have evaluated the association between the NLR in adverse outcomes of patients and acute coronary syndromes, several studies have exclusively investigated the association between the NLR and the postprocedural flow in the IRA after primary PCI in patients with STEMI. Similar to our findings, in a recent paper, Karabağ et al21 reported an independent association between the presentation NLR and postprocedural no-reflow in patients with STEMI. In their study, WBC, neutrophils, and lymphocytes were also associated with no-reflow. We too found the association of WBC and neutrophils in our study; nonetheless, our results failed to show a significant association with the lymphocyte count. Our findings also did not show a statistically significant association between the platelet count and no-reflow after primary PCI, which chimes in with the findings of the study by Karabağ et al.   21  In another study, Lee et al22 reported an association between the presentation NLR and IRA patency before and after primary PCI in patients with STEMI. Our findings are similar concerning the postprocedural TIMI flow; nevertheless, we found no association between the presentation NLR and preprocedural IRA patency. It should be noted that Lee et al        22  did not include patients with a postprocedural TIMI-0/1. Kaya et al10 demonstrated an association between the NLR and no-reflow following primary PCI in univariate analysis. In their multivariate analysis for the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events, the NLR was an independent predictor after adjustments for no-reflow. In a study by Akpek et al,7 the NLR was independently associated with no-reflow after primary PCI, but WBC and platelet counts were similar between patients with reflow and those without reflow following primary PCI. In contrast to our finding, the NLR was not associated with no-reflow after primary PCI in patients with STEMI in a study by Karahan et al,23 who compared a postprocedural TIMI-0/1 with a TIMI-2/3, which may have contributed to the different results. The discrepancies between studies regarding the role of hematological indices in predicting postprocedural no-reflow may partially be explained by different inclusion criteria and the definition of IRA patency by TIMI flow grading.

Our results revealed no significant association between the NLR and a preprocedural TIMI-2/3 in comparison with a preprocedural TIMI-0/1. These findings are consistent with the results of a study by Sen et al,24 who reported that preprocedural TIMI flow grades were not significantly different between NLR tertiles. Lee et al22 found higher NLR levels in lower TIMI flow grades before primary PCI in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analysis. In contrast, there are other studies reporting the NLR as an independent predictor of the preprocedural TIMI flow.11, 25, 26 

We also studied the association between the NLR and the SYNTAX score. According to our results, the NLR was not significantly associated with SYNTAX score subgroups. Still, WBC, neutrophil, and platelet counts were significantly higher in our higher SYNTAX subgroups. In a study by Sahin et al,9 the NLR was an independent predictor of the SYNTAX score in patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI. In a univariate analysis, they also found an association between a higher SYNTAX score and WBC, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts, but not with the platelet count.

While the roles of inflammatory and thrombotic pathways in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and coronary artery diseases are well known, the incorporation of presentation blood counts into risk stratification models, which may potentially change therapeutic plans, has become challenging due to the diverse nature of coronary artery diseases and different study samples, including a diverse range of patients with coronary atherosclerosis.27-29

More recently, the SII, which combines the 3 types of cells, namely platelets, neutrophils, and lymphocytes, has been shown as a reliable marker for the prediction of outcomes in various neoplasms.15, 16 However, the role of this index in coronary artery diseases, in which all 3 cell types are potentially involved, is not known yet. As the SII is calculated from the counts of 3 blood cell types that are readily available in all patients on presentation, we decided to investigate its role in predicting the SYNTAX score and pre- and postprocedural TIMI flow grades in patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI. While the SII on presentation was not associated with the TIMI flow grade before primary PCI or the SYNTAX score, a higher SII predicted the increased possibility of no-reflow in IRA after primary PCI with a higher sensitivity and a lower specificity than the NLR.

An increase in the NLR and the SII is indicative of an acute inflammatory response in the setting of an ongoing MI. Despite the fact that acute inflammation leads to an increased number of circulating neutrophils and platelets, cortisol secretion can decrease the lymphocytes in circulation in the course of an MI.30, 31 Our findings showed no association between the NLR and the SII and the extent of coronary involvement assessed by SYNTAX score or preprocedural TIMI flow grade, but they showed a significant association between impaired flow after primary PCI and an increased NLR and SII on presentation. Although the adverse outcome of patients without a final TIMI-3 during PCI is well established,        32  the complex underlying pathophysiological mechanism is not entirely known. Vasospasm, distal thromboemboli, cellular and endothelial injury, and edema as a result of ischemia and reperfusion injury are all involved in the pathogenesis of impaired reflow and microvascular stagnation after PCI.        33  The ischemia-induced local inflammation may become augmented by systemic inflammatory cells and released mediators, which flow to the site after the recanalization of the epicardial artery. Furthermore, enhanced systemic platelet activation and aggregation, which may persist even with double antiplatelet therapies, contribute to this process.   34  Platelet and leukocyte aggregation in coronary capillaries may further increase microvascular resistance and decrease the flow.   35  Additionally, endothelial dysfunction and local inflammatory state may trigger the formation of microvascular thrombosis and the formation of platelet-neutrophil complexes,        36  which in turn exacerbates the severity of inflammatory tissue injury. This veracious cycle, as well as the resultant no-reflow after the recanalization of the epicardial artery, may adversely influence the clinical benefit of primary PCI in the setting of STEMI. It should be noted that ongoing research regarding the pharmacological and non-pharmacological adjunctive treatments for preventing no-reflow after primary PCI show controversial results, partly due to the heterogeneous nature of patient populations.   37  Accordingly identifying susceptible patients and targeting the at-risk population may help identify potential treatments.

Future multicenter investigations with larger samples are needed to explain the discrepancy of results regarding the role of presentation blood cells in predicting the SYNTAX score and the preprocedural TIMI flow. There might be other unmeasured confounding factors that could potentially affect the findings. In addition, experimental studies are required to better understand the underlying mechanism by which inflammatory cells contribute to the pathophysiology of impaired reflow and reperfusion injury.

Conclusion

In patients with STEMI, the presentation NLR and SII are both useful for predicting the risk of no-reflow after primary PCI. While the NLR has a higher specificity for predicting no-reflow following primary PCI, the SII has a higher sensitivity for detecting the risk of no-reflow. Nonetheless, the NLR and the SII are not associated with SYNTAX risk groups and preprocedural TIMI flow grades in STEMI.

Acknowledgments

This study was approved and supported by Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

Notes:

This paper should be cited as: Rostami A, Tajlil A, Separham A, Sohrabi B, Pourafkari L, Roshanravan N, Aslanabadi N, Ziaee M, Mashayekhi S, Ghaffari S. Association between Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and the Systemic Inflammatory Immunologic Index and the Angiographic SYNTAX Score and the TIMI Flow Grade in Acute STEMI: A Cohort Study. J Teh Univ Heart Ctr 2021;16(4):147-155.

References

  • 1.O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey DE, Chung MK, de Lemos JA, Ettinger SM, Fang JC, Fesmire FM, Franklin BA, Granger CB, Krumholz HM, Linderbaum JA, Morrow DA, Newby LK, Ornato JP, Ou N, Radford MJ, Tamis-Holland JE, Tommaso CL, Tracy CM, Woo YJ, Zhao DX. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:e78–e140. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ndrepepa G, Tiroch K, Keta D, Fusaro M, Seyfarth M, Pache J, Mehilli J, Schomig A, Kastrati A. Predictive factors and impact of no reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:27–33. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.896225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bailleul C, Aissaoui N, Cayla G, Dillinger JG, Jouve B, Schiele F, Ferrieres J, Simon T, Danchin N, Puymirat E. Prognostic impact of prepercutaneous coronary intervention TIMI flow in patients with ST-segment and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Results from the FAST-MI 2010 registry. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2018;111:101–108. doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2017.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Choudhary S. Association of syntax score with short-term outcomes among acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary PCI. Indian Heart J. 2017;69:S20–S23. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2016.08.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, Morice MC, Colombo A, Dawkins K, van den Brand M, Van Dyck N, Russell ME, Mohr FW, Serruys PW. The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention. 2005;1:219–227. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bundhun PK, Sookharee Y, Bholee A, Huang F. Application of the SYNTAX score in interventional cardiology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2017;96:e7410–e7410. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Akpek M, Kaya MG, Lam YY, Sahin O, Elcik D, Celik T, Ergin A, Gibson CM. Relation of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio to coronary flow to in-hospital major adverse cardiac events in patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction undergoing primary coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110:621–627. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.04.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kurtul S, Sarli B, Baktir AO, Demirbas M, Saglam H, Dogan Y, Sahin O, Akpek M, Odabas H, Arinc H, Kaya MG. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio predicts SYNTAX score in patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Int Heart J. 2015;56:18–21. doi: 10.1536/ihj.14-175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sahin DY, Elbasan Z, Gur M, Yildiz A, Akpinar O, Icen YK, Turkoglu C, Tekin K, Kuloglu O, Cayli M. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio is associated with the severity of coronary artery disease in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Angiology. 2013;64:423–429. doi: 10.1177/0003319712453305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sahin DY, Gur M, Elbasan Z, Yildiz A, Kaya Z, Icen YK, Kivrak A, Turkoglu C, Yilmaz R, Cayli M. Predictors of preinterventional patency of infarct-related artery in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Importance of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and uric acid level. Exp Clin Cardiol. 2013;18:e77–81. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Acet H, Ertas F, Bilik MZ, Akil MA, Ozyurtlu F, Aydin M, Oylumlu M, Polat N, Yuksel M, Yildiz A, Kaya H, Akyuz A, Aycicek H, Ozbek M, Toprak N. The relationship between neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, platelet to lymphocyte ratio and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score in patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction before primary coronary intervention. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2015;11:126–135. doi: 10.5114/pwki.2015.52286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Turkmen S, Dogdu O, Tekin K, Kucukdurmaz Z, Cagliyan CE, Sarikaya S, Yucel H, Karapinar H, Ozkan B, Uysal OK, Basara A, Sancaktar E, Yilmaz A. The relationship between neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and the TIMI flow grade in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013;17:2185–2189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hong X, Cui B, Wang M, Yang Z, Wang L, Xu Q. Systemic immune-inflammation index, based on platelet counts and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, is useful for predicting prognosis in small cell lung cancer. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2015;236:297–304. doi: 10.1620/tjem.236.297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fest J, Ruiter R, Ikram MA, Voortman T, van Eijck CHJ, Stricker BH. Reference values for white blood-cell-based inflammatory markers in the Rotterdam Study: a population-based prospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2018;8:10566. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28646-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Huang H, Liu Q, Zhu L, Zhang Y, Lu X, Wu Y, Liu L. Prognostic value of preoperative systemic immune-inflammation index in patients with cervical cancer. Sci Rep. 2019;9:3284. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39150-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shi H, Jiang Y, Cao H, Zhu H, Chen B, Ji W. Nomogram based on systemic immune-inflammation index to predict overall survival in gastric cancer patients. Dis Markers. 2018;2018:1787424. doi: 10.1155/2018/1787424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Valero C, Pardo L, Sansa A, Garcia Lorenzo J, López M, Quer M, León X. Prognostic capacity of Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head & Neck. 2020;42:336–343. doi: 10.1002/hed.26010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ackland GL, Abbott TEF, Cain D, Edwards MR, Sultan P, Karmali SN, Fowler AJ, Whittle JR, MacDonald NJ, Reyes A, Paredes LG, Stephens RCM, Del Arroyo AG, Woldman S, Archbold RA, Wragg A, Kam E, Ahmad T, Khan AW, Niebrzegowska E, Pearse RM. Preoperative systemic inflammation and perioperative myocardial injury: prospective observational multicentre cohort study of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122:180–187. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.09.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, Stahle E, Feldman TE, van den Brand M, Bass EJ, Van Dyck N, Leadley K, Dawkins KD, Mohr FW. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961–972. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Group TS. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial. Phase I findings. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:932–936. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198504043121437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Karabağ Y, Çağdaş M, Rencuzogullari I, Karakoyun S, Artaç İ, İliş D, Yesin M, Çağdaş ÖS, Altıntaş B, Burak C, Tanboğa HI. Usefulness of the c-reactive protein/albumin ratio for predicting no-reflow in ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48:e12928. doi: 10.1111/eci.12928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lee MJ, Park SD, Kwon SW, Woo SI, Lee MD, Shin SH, Kim DH, Kwan J, Park KS. Relation between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and index of microcirculatory resistance in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118:1323–1328. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.07.072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Karahan Z, Ucaman B, Ulug AV, Aydinalp O, Ugurlu M, Cevik K, Kaya I, Ozturk O. Effect of hematologic parameters on microvascular reperfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Angiology. 2016;67:151–156. doi: 10.1177/0003319715583204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sen N, Afsar B, Ozcan F, Buyukkaya E, Isleyen A, Akcay AB, Yuzgecer H, Kurt M, Karakas MF, Basar N, Hajro E, Kanbay M. The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio was associated with impaired myocardial perfusion and long term adverse outcome in patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction undergoing primary coronary intervention. Atherosclerosis. 2013;228:203–210. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2013.02.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yayla C, Akboga MK, Canpolat U, Akyel A, Yayla KG, Dogan M, Yeter E, Aydogdu S. Platelet to lymphocyte ratio can be a predictor of infarct-related artery patency in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Angiology. 2015;66:831–836. doi: 10.1177/0003319715573658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kurtul A, Murat SN, Yarlioglues M, Duran M, Karadeniz M, Ergun G, Ocek AH. The relationship between neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and infarct-related artery patency before mechanical reperfusion in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Coron Artery Dis. 2014;25:159–166. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Taleb S. Inflammation in atherosclerosis. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2016;109:708–715. doi: 10.1016/j.acvd.2016.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Brown RA, Shantsila E, Varma C, Lip GY. Current understanding of atherogenesis. Am J Med. 2017;130:268–282. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sadat U, Jaffer FA, van Zandvoort MA, Nicholls SJ, Ribatti D, Gillard JH. Inflammation and neovascularization intertwined in atherosclerosis: imaging of structural and molecular imaging targets. Circulation. 2014;130:786–794. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.010369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hansson GK, Hermansson A. The immune system in atherosclerosis. Nat Immunol. 2011;12:204–212. doi: 10.1038/ni.2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hansson GK. Inflammation, atherosclerosis, and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1685–1695. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra043430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sattur S, Sarwar B, Sacchi TJ, Brener SJ. Correlation between markers of reperfusion and mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014;26:587–595. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sezer M, van Royen N, Umman B, Bugra Z, Bulluck H, Hausenloy DJ, Umman S. Coronary microvascular injury in reperfused acute myocardial infarction: a view from an integrative perspective. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e009949. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009949. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Aurigemma C, Scalone G, Tomai F, Altamura L, De Persio G, Stazi A, Lanza GA, Crea F. Persistent enhanced platelet activation in patients with acute myocardial infarction and coronary microvascular obstruction: clinical implications. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111:122–130. doi: 10.1160/TH13-02-0166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ziegler M, Wang X, Peter K. Platelets in cardiac ischaemia/reperfusion injury: a promising therapeutic target. Cardiovasc Res. 2019;115:1178–1188. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvz070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kohler D, Straub A, Weissmuller T, Faigle M, Bender S, Lehmann R, Wendel HP, Kurz J, Walter U, Zacharowski K, Rosenberger P. Phosphorylation of vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein prevents platelet-neutrophil complex formation and dampens myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury. Circulation. 2011;123:2579–2590. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.014555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Niccoli G, Montone Rocco A, Ibanez B, Thiele H, Crea F, Heusch G, Bulluck H, Hausenloy Derek J, Berry C, Stiermaier T, Camici Paolo G, Eitel I. Optimized treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circ Res. 2019;125:245–258. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.119.315344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Tehran University Heart Center are provided here courtesy of Tehran University of Medical Sciences

RESOURCES