Prognostic value of eosinophil to platelet ratio in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
10.3760/cma.j.cn341190-20240919-01200
- VernacularTitle:嗜酸性粒细胞与血小板比值对AECOPD患者预后的评估价值
- Author:
Huanhuan YANG
1
;
Ningning YU
1
;
Jinlin GE
1
Author Information
1. 温州市中西医结合医院呼吸内科，温州 325000
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Pulmonary disease, chronic obstructive;
Eosinopenia;
Blood platelets;
Lymphocytes;
Prognosis;
ROC curve;
Forecasting
- From:
Chinese Journal of Primary Medicine and Pharmacy
2025;32(7):981-986
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the eosinophil-to-platelet ratio (EPR) in predicting the prognosis of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).Methods:Based on the prognosis within 3 months after discharge, 158 patients with AECOPD admitted to Wenzhou Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine from February 2020 to February 2024 were divided into a good prognosis group and a poor prognosis group. General data, eosinophil count, platelet count, eosinophil-to-platelet ratio (EPR), procalcitonin (PCT) level, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), were retrospectively collected from both groups. The factors influencing prognosis within 3 months after discharge were analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model. The predictive value of these factors for poor prognosis was assessed through receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.Results:Among the 158 patients with AECOPD, 23 had a poor prognosis, 127 had a good prognosis, and 8 were lost to follow-up or died unexpectedly. The eosinophil count and EPR in the peripheral blood of patients with a poor prognosis were significantly lower than those in patients with a good prognosis ( t = 3.22, 4.11, both P < 0.05). The eosinophil count [ OR = 5.709, 95% CI: (2.653, 12.285)] and EPR [ OR = 19.747, 95% CI: (8.352, 46.686)] were independent risk factors for a poor prognosis in patients with AECOPD at 3 months after discharge (both P < 0.05). The results of the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that the area under the curve for eosinophil count and EPR in predicting a poor prognosis in patients with AECOPD at 3 months after discharge was 0.706 [95% CI: (0.596, 0.815)] and 0.730 [95% CI: (0.630, 0.829)], respectively. The cut-off values were 109.20 counts/μL for eosinophil count and 1.06 for EPR, with corresponding sensitivities and specificities of 43.48% and 88.19%, and 82.61% and 59.06%, respectively. Conclusions:EOS and EPR have good predictive value for the adverse prognosis of patients with AECOPD within 3 months after discharge, and EPR has better efficacy.
