Evidence Hub

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio relation to sepsis severity scores and inflammatory biomarkers in patients with community-acquired pneumonia: A case series

N. Pantzaris, C. Platanaki, Charalampos Pierrako, V. Karamouzos, D. Velissaris

Journal of Translational Internal Medicine, 2018

26 participants · 53 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background and Objectives Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as calculated from the white cell differential blood count is considered a promising marker for the prognosis of patients with various diseases, including sepsis. This study was designed to assess the possible use of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in the prediction of survival outcomes in patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP). A secondary objective was to compare the prognostic accuracy of NLR with the commonly used severity scores of sepsis SOFA, APACHE II and SAPS II. Methods This was a retrospective study based on data extracted from 26 patients suffering from acute CAP. The study period was from February 01, 2017 until April 30, 2017. All patients with CAP were presented in the Emergency Department (ED) of the University Hospital of Patras, Greece and were treated after admission in the Internal Medicine Department. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was calculated from the white blood cell count (WBC) values measured from a peripheral venous blood specimen drawn on admission. It was then compared with C-reactive protein (CRP) serum levels and the sepsis calculated prognostic scores APACHE II, SAPS II and SOFA. The impact of the above parameters was evaluated in relation to the final outcome. Results The mean period of hospitalization for the enrolled patients was 9.3 days (SD 5.8 days). Twenty-four patients (92.3%) got finally discharged from the hospital and two (7.7%) died during…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 26 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