No abstract

Objective Smoking has been proven to increase systemic inflammation in previous studies using different biomarkers. The eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (ELR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) are new indicators of systemic inflammation that are used as predictors of systemic inflammation, morbidity, and mortality associated with many diseases. We investigated the effects of smoking on these inflammatory indicators. Methods In total, 616 consecutive smoking healthy subjects and 387 age-matched nonsmoking healthy subjects were enrolled. White blood cell counts (neutrophils, lymphocytes, basophils, eosinophils, and monocytes) were determined by electrical impedance with an automatic blood cell counting device. The ELR, LMR, and NLR were calculated based on these cell counts. Smoking habits of participants were calculated as pack/year. Results The NLR and ELR were significantly higher and the LMR was significantly lower in smokers than nonsmokers. The pack-years were positively correlated with the NLR and ELR and negatively correlated with the LMR. Conclusion A high NLR and ELR and low LMR are associated with cigarette smoking and may be useful indicators of systemic inflammation activity, even in healthy smokers. Smokers with a high NLR and ELR and low LMR can easily be identified during routine blood analysis and might benefit from preventive treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

We aimed to compare the power of the HAS-BLED and CRUSADE risk scores in predicting in-hospital bleeding events in patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing elective coronary angiography. A total of 405 consecutive patients were included in the study. The mean HAS-BLED score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the in-hospital bleeding group. In patients with a HAS-BLED score ≥ 3, the in-hospital bleeding rate was significantly higher than in those with a HAS-BLED score < 3 (p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that the HAS-BLED score was superior in predicting in-hospital bleeding events compared to the CRUSADE score [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.684 vs 0.569, respectively, p = 0.002]. Also in the percutaneous coronary intervention subgroup, the HAS-BLED score was superior to the CRUSADE score (AUC = 0.722 vs 0.520, respectively, p = 0.002). We showed that the HAS-BLED and CRUDASE scores are helpful in stable patients undergoing elective coronary angiography. Our results suggest that as a practical, easy-to-implement and more predictive scoring system, the HAS-BLED score was more useful for predicting in-hospital bleeding in patients who did not present with acute coronary syndrome.