Is eosinophile count a diagnostic marker in peripheral artery disease?

AIM: The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the eosinophil levels in patients diagnosed with peripheral arterial disease and who underwent endovascular procedures, to determine whether the eosinophil count has a predictive value in the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease and to determine the relationship between the eosinophil count and the severity and clinical picture of PAH. METHOD: The study is a retrospective study. The study was conducted at Süleyman Demirel University Research and Training Hospital between 04.01.2024 and 01.07.2024. 199 patients with peripheral arterial disease were included in the study. The control group consisted of 299 people between the ages of 18-40 who had no known disease or medication use. The hemogram, biochemistry and coagulation test results evaluated at the Süleyman Demirel University Research and Training Hospital laboratory were used as data. The data were collected and evaluated by the researcher. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 63.8 ± 12.2 and the mean age of the control patients was 32.1 ± 6.3. 85.9% of the patients were male and 14.1% were female, and 89.4% of the control group was male and 10.6% were female. The mean Rutherford scores of the patients were 3.2 ± 0.9 on admission and 1.1 ± 1.5 after the procedure. The Rutherford scores of the patients with PAH were significantly higher than the scores after the procedure (p<0.05). Neutrophil/lymphocyte, neutrophil (%), neutrophil, platelet values were significantly higher than the control group (p<0.05); lymphocyte, monocyte (%), lymphocyte, hemoglobin, and hematocrit were significantly lower in the patients (p<0.05). No predictive value was found for eosinophil levels to define disease (AUC=0.531, p=0.282). In the presence of occlusion in the distal artery, eosinophil levels are significantly low (p<0.05). In cases where reoperation is required, eosinophil levels are significantly high (p<0.05). There is a low level significant positive correlation between age and eosinophil levels (r=0.105, p<0.05). There is a moderately significant positive correlation between Rutherford admission scores and Rutherford post-procedure scores (r=0.682, p<0.05). There is a moderately significant negative correlation between Rutherford admission scores and ABI levels (r=-0.645, p<0.05). There is a moderately significant negative correlation between Rutherford post-procedure scores and ABI levels (r=-0.555, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Eosinophil levels were not found to be different between PAH patients and healthy controls. According to our study, eosinophil levels are not a marker that can be used in the diagnosis of PAH. This study, in which we investigated whether eosinophil levels are a diagnostic marker in PAH patients, is a retrospective study. Although the results found are results that need to be confirmed by other studies, it was concluded that eosinophil counts may be important in prognosis, although not in the diagnosis of PAH, which is extremely important.