Usefulness of Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio as a Predictor of Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-analysis

Background and Aims Current evidence suggests that a high neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) may increase the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF), but this association is still uncertain. The aim of the comprehensive meta-analysis was to evaluate the potential association between NLR and the risk of AF....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archives of medical research 2015-04, Vol.46 (3), p.199-206
Main Authors: Shao, Qingmiao, Chen, Kangyin, Rha, Seung-Woon, Lim, Hong-Euy, Li, Guangping, Liu, Tong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Atrial fibrillation
Atrial Fibrillation - blood
Humans
Inflammation
Internal Medicine
Leukocyte Count
Lymphocyte Count
Lymphocytes
Marker
Meta-analysis
Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio
Neutrophils
Predictive Value of Tests
Risk Factors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background and Aims Current evidence suggests that a high neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) may increase the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF), but this association is still uncertain. The aim of the comprehensive meta-analysis was to evaluate the potential association between NLR and the risk of AF. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search using electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Database and Web of Science) to identify the studies reporting the association between NLR and risk of AF. We searched the literature published January 2015 or earlier. We used both fixed-effects and random-effects models to calculate the overall effect estimate. An I2 >50% indicates at least moderate statistical heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to find the origin of heterogeneity. Results We retrieved 11 studies involving a total of 2,766 participants. The combined odds ratio (OR) of incident AF for baseline NLR level was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–1.35) with significant heterogeneity across studies ( I2  = 82.7%, p  
ISSN:0188-4409
1873-5487
DOI:10.1016/j.arcmed.2015.03.011