# Predictive value of the monocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

## TL;DR

This study finds that the monocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (MHR) can help predict atrial fibrillation risk, but its accuracy varies depending on the type of AF and study size.

## Contribution

The study introduces MHR as a potential biomarker for predicting atrial fibrillation with varying diagnostic performance across AF subtypes.

## Key findings

- Elevated MHR is independently associated with increased atrial fibrillation risk (OR = 1.21).
- MHR shows highest sensitivity and AUC in non-procedural AF (sensitivity 0.91, AUC 0.94).
- Large-sample studies show lower sensitivity but higher specificity compared to small-sample studies.

## Abstract

The monocyte-to-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (MHR) has emerged as a novel biomarker for cardiovascular outcomes. However, its role in atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of MHR in predicting AF risk.

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to March 20, 2025. The primary outcome was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MHR for predicting AF using summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve analysis. The secondary outcome was to explore the relationship between MHR and AF risk. Pooled odds ratio (OR), sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated.

A total of 13 studies comprising 5,499 participants were included. Elevated MHR was independently associated with an increased AF risk (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11–1.31; P < 0.001). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71–0.93) and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.60–0.75), yielding an area under the SROC curve of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76–0.83). Subgroup analyses revealed significant diagnostic performance variations by AF phenotype: MHR had the highest sensitivity (0.91; 95% CI 0.74–1.00) and AUC (0.94; 95% CI 0.91–0.96) in non-procedural AF, followed by post-ablation recurrence (sensitivity = 0.86, AUC = 0.83) and new-onset AF (sensitivity = 0.80, AUC = 0.83). Large-sample studies (>600) showed lower sensitivity (0.71 vs. 0.90) but higher specificity (0.78 vs. 0.60) than small-sample studies (≤600). No significant publication bias was detected (p = 0.45).

MHR demonstrates moderate diagnostic accuracy for AF risk prediction and is better suited as a screening or complementary biomarker than a standalone diagnostic tool. Its diagnostic performance varies significantly by AF phenotype and clinical context. Given the limited number of studies, significant heterogeneity, and unstandardized MHR cut-offs, large-scale prospective studies with standardized protocols are warranted to validate these findings and facilitate targeted clinical application.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251030225.