Abstract 199: Association of the Monocyte‐to‐HDL ratio (MHR) with the diagnosis and prognosis of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

• Published in: Stroke: vascular and interventional neurology 2024-11, Vol.4 (S1)
• Main Authors: Luna, G, Rios-Garcia, W, Váscones-Román, F F, Quispe-Vicuña, C, Velazco-Muñoz, J, Carbajal-García, G, Alegre-Cordero, I
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Ischemia
• ISSN: 2694-5746; 2694-5746
• DOI: 10.1161/SVIN.04.suppl_1.199

ObjectiveTo summarize the current evidence on the diagnostic and prognostic value of Monocyte‐to‐HDL ratio (MHR) on acute ischemic stroke (AIS)BackgroundRecently, the MHR has been studied as a potential biomarker for assessing the prognosis of different diseases.Design/MethodsWe searched 5 databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar) until June 2024. We included observational studies that evaluated the association between MHR and AIS. A meta‐analysis using a random‐effects model to estimate pooled effects was planned for each outcome and a narrative synthesis when this was not possible. The Newcastle‐Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias and GRADE criteria were used to identify the certainty of evidence.Results11 studies (7 cohorts, 3 cross‐sectionals and 1 case‐control) were included. With high uncertainty, a meta‐analysis of 4 studies showed a significantly increased risk of AIS in patients with a higher MHR (MD: 2.14, 95%CI: 1.75 to 2.54, I2: 100%, 4 studies). Regarding AIS prognosis, two separate meta‐analysis were conducted on 30‐day mortality and functional outcome. With high uncertainty, the MHR was found to be higher in deceased patients within 30 days of AIS onset (MD: 3.22, 95%CI: ‐3.28 to 9.72, I2: 99%, 2 studies), and higher in patients with mRS score > 2 at 90 days (MD: 0.15, 95%CI: ‐0.05 to 0.34, I2: 87%, 2 studies). Additionally, all studies reported a low risk of bias.ConclusionsWith high uncertainty, we found that MHR is a useful tool for the diagnosis and prediction of poor outcomes in AIS. However, we need more studies, especially prospective ones, in order to improve the evidence regarding this index.