4.3 Review

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in acute ischemic stroke: Immunopathology, management, and prognosis

Journal

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 144, Issue 5, Pages 486-499

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ane.13493

Keywords

acute ischemic stroke; clinical decision making; immunopathogenesis; neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio; pathophysiology; prognosis; reperfusion therapy

Funding

  1. NSW Ministry of Health [2019-2022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

NLR shows potential as a prognostic biomarker in AIS patients receiving reperfusion therapy, but challenges remain in its accuracy and clinical translation. Future research should focus on the role of NLR in risk stratification to guide early treatment strategies.
There is an ongoing need for accurate prognostic biomarkers in the milieu of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) receiving reperfusion therapy. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been implicated in emergency medicine and acute stroke setting as an important biomarker in the prognosis of patients. However, there are ongoing questions around its accuracy and translation into clinical practice given suboptimal sensitivity and specificity results, as well as varying thresholds and lack of clarity around which NLR time points are most clinically indicative. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the role of NLR in AIS patients receiving reperfusion therapy and perspectives on areas of future research. NLR may be an important biomarker in risk stratifying patients in AIS to identify and select those who are more likely to benefit from reperfusion therapy. Appropriate clinical decision-making tools and models are required to harness the predictive value of NLR, which could be useful in identifying and monitoring high-risk patients to guide early treatment and achieve improved outcomes. Our understanding of the role of NLR in the immunopathogenesis of AIS is also suboptimal, which hinders the ability to translate this into clinical practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available