Epicardial Fat Thickness and Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio are Increased in Non-Dipper Hypertensive Patients

B. Kim, K. Cho, J. Choi, Dong Hyun Park, Ga-In Yu, S. Im, H. Kim, J. Heo, T. Cha
{"title":"Epicardial Fat Thickness and Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio are Increased in Non-Dipper Hypertensive Patients","authors":"B. Kim, K. Cho, J. Choi, Dong Hyun Park, Ga-In Yu, S. Im, H. Kim, J. Heo, T. Cha","doi":"10.4250/jcu.2016.24.4.294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness (EFT), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; an important inflammatory marker), and diurnal blood pressure (BP) changes in patients with recently diagnosed essential hypertension. Methods A total of 647 patients underwent echocardiography and 24 hours of ambulatory BP monitoring. EFT was measured by echocardiography, while NLR was measured by dividing the neutrophil count by the lymphocyte count. Patients were categorized into three groups according to BP pattern: the normotensive group, the dipper group, and the non-dipper group. Results The mean EFT was highest in the non-dipper group (non-dipper group, 7.3 ± 3.0 mm; dipper group, 6.1 ± 2.0 mm; control group, 5.6 ± 2.0 mm; p < 0.001). NLR was also highest in the non-dipper group (non-dipper, 2.75 ± 2.81; dipper, 2.01 ± 1.32; control, 1.92 ± 1.11; p < 0.001). EFT was significantly correlated with age (r = 0.160, p < 0.001) and NLR (r = 0.353, p < 0.001). Furthermore, an EFT ≥ 7.0 mm was associated with the non-dipper BP pattern with 51.3% sensitivity and 71.6% specificity [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56–0.65, p < 0.001]. In a multivariate analysis, EFT [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 3.99, 95% CI = 1.22–13.10, p = 0.022] and NLR (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.05–1.71, p = 0.018) were independent parameters that distinguished a non-dipper pattern after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusion EFT and NLR are independently associated with impaired diurnal BP profiles in hypertensive individuals. EFT (as measured by echocardiography) and NLR appear to be helpful in stratifying cardiometabolic risk.","PeriodicalId":88913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cardiovascular ultrasound","volume":"42 1","pages":"294 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cardiovascular ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4250/jcu.2016.24.4.294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between echocardiographic epicardial fat thickness (EFT), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR; an important inflammatory marker), and diurnal blood pressure (BP) changes in patients with recently diagnosed essential hypertension. Methods A total of 647 patients underwent echocardiography and 24 hours of ambulatory BP monitoring. EFT was measured by echocardiography, while NLR was measured by dividing the neutrophil count by the lymphocyte count. Patients were categorized into three groups according to BP pattern: the normotensive group, the dipper group, and the non-dipper group. Results The mean EFT was highest in the non-dipper group (non-dipper group, 7.3 ± 3.0 mm; dipper group, 6.1 ± 2.0 mm; control group, 5.6 ± 2.0 mm; p < 0.001). NLR was also highest in the non-dipper group (non-dipper, 2.75 ± 2.81; dipper, 2.01 ± 1.32; control, 1.92 ± 1.11; p < 0.001). EFT was significantly correlated with age (r = 0.160, p < 0.001) and NLR (r = 0.353, p < 0.001). Furthermore, an EFT ≥ 7.0 mm was associated with the non-dipper BP pattern with 51.3% sensitivity and 71.6% specificity [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56–0.65, p < 0.001]. In a multivariate analysis, EFT [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 3.99, 95% CI = 1.22–13.10, p = 0.022] and NLR (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.05–1.71, p = 0.018) were independent parameters that distinguished a non-dipper pattern after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusion EFT and NLR are independently associated with impaired diurnal BP profiles in hypertensive individuals. EFT (as measured by echocardiography) and NLR appear to be helpful in stratifying cardiometabolic risk.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非北侧高血压患者心外膜脂肪厚度及中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值增高
在本研究中,我们旨在探讨超声心动图心外膜脂肪厚度(EFT)、中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR;(一种重要的炎症标志物),以及新近诊断为原发性高血压的患者的日血压(BP)变化。方法对647例患者行超声心动图检查和24小时动态血压监测。超声心动图测定EFT,中性粒细胞计数除以淋巴细胞计数测定NLR。根据血压模式将患者分为三组:正常血压组、降压组和非降压组。结果无勺组EFT平均值最高(无勺组,7.3±3.0 mm;斗组,6.1±2.0 mm;对照组5.6±2.0 mm;P < 0.001)。NLR也以未翻斗组最高(2.75±2.81;斗,2.01±1.32;对照组:1.92±1.11;P < 0.001)。EFT与年龄(r = 0.160, p < 0.001)、NLR (r = 0.353, p < 0.001)显著相关。此外,EFT≥7.0 mm与非倾角血压模式相关,敏感性为51.3%,特异性为71.6%[95%置信区间(CI) = 0.56-0.65, p < 0.001]。在多因素分析中,EFT[校正优势比(OR) = 3.99, 95% CI = 1.22-13.10, p = 0.022]和NLR (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.05-1.71, p = 0.018)是校正心血管危险因素后区分非倾斜模式的独立参数。结论EFT和NLR与高血压患者的昼夜血压变化有独立的相关性。EFT(通过超声心动图测量)和NLR似乎有助于对心脏代谢风险进行分层。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Long Term Outcomes of Left Atrial Reservoir Function in Children with a History of Kawasaki Disease. Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Cardiovascular Toxicity Related to Anti-Cancer Treatment in Clinical Practice: An Opinion Paper from the Working Group on Cardio-Oncology of the Korean Society of Echocardiography. Impact of a Geometric Correction for Proximal Flow Constraint on the Assessment of Mitral Regurgitation Severity Using the Proximal Flow Convergence Method. Recurrent Acute Myocardial Infarction Caused by Intra-cardiac Metastatic Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma during Cancer Treatment. A Rare Case of Left Ventricular Noncompaction in LEOPARD Syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1