• Tao Zhou, Nan Zheng, Xiang Li, Dongmei Zhu, and Yi Han.
• Department of Critical Care Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, China.
• BMC Emerg Med. 2021 Feb 23; 21 (1): 24.

BackgroundNeutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio (NLCR) has been reported as better indicator of bacteremia than procalcitonin (PCT), and more precise predictor of mortality than C-reactive protein (CRP) under various medical conditions. However, large controversy remains upon this topic. To address the discrepancy, our group has compared the efficiency of NLCR with conventional inflammatory markers in predicting the prognosis of critical illness.MethodsWe performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study involving 536 ICU patients with outcomes of survival, 28- and 7-day mortality. NLCR was compared with conventional inflammatory markers such as PCT, CRP, serum lactate (LAC), white blood cell, neutrophil and severity score APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) to evaluate the potential outcomes of critical illness. Then, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed to assess and compare each marker's sensitivity and specificity respectively.ResultsNLCR values were not different between survival and mortality groups. Meanwhile, remarkable differences were observed upon APACHE II score, CRP, PCT and LAC levels between survival and death groups. ROC analysis revealed that NLCR was not competent to predict prognosis of critical illness. The AUROCs of conventional markers such as CRP, PCT, LAC and APACHE II score were more effective in predicting 28- and 7-day mortality.ConclusionsNLCR is less reliable than conventional markers CRP, PCT, LAC and APACHE II score in assessing severity and in predicting outcomes of critical illness.

6 keywords...

hide…