Evidence Hub

Exploring the Correlation between Systemic Inflammatory Markers and Carotid Atherosclerosis Indices in Middle-Aged Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

Jieun Song, Ji-in Hwang, Hae-Jin Ko, Ji-Yeon Park, Hee-Eun Hong, A. Kim

Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease, 2024

1,264 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Background: This study investigated the association between atherosclerosis and systemic inflammation markers, specifically the C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), in healthy middle-aged adults. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on a total of 1264 Korean adults aged 40–65. We assessed these inflammatory markers and carotid metrics, such as carotid intima–media thickness (cIMT), plaque number (PN), plaque stenosis score (PSS), and plaque score (PS), using linear regression, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: In males, the ESR and CRP were significantly correlated with the PN (p < 0.001 and p = 0.048, respectively). The ESR was correlated with the PN in females (p = 0.004). The NLR and PLR both correlated with the PS in males (p < 0.001 and p = 0.015, respectively) and females (p = 0.015 and p = 0.023, respectively). The odds ratio for the NLR as a risk factor for increased cIMT was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–2.15) for males and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01–1.29) for females. The AUC for the NLR and PLR as a predictor for the PS showed significance in both men and women. Conclusions: Inflammatory markers, particularly the NLR and PLR, demonstrate a correlation with carotid atherosclerosis. Both the NLR and PLR hold potential as valuable surrogate markers for carotid atherosclerosis. To further…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 1,264 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free