{"title":"Cut-off values of Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index for cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with acute myocardial infarction","authors":"Satoshi Ito, Yasunori Inoue, Tomohisa Nagoshi, Takatoku Aizawa, Yusuke Kashiwagi, Satoshi Morimoto, Kazuo Ogawa, Kosuke Minai, Takayuki Ogawa, Michihiro Yoshimura","doi":"10.1007/s00380-024-02455-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a straightforward nutritional risk assessment tool with an established relationship with poor prognosis in patients with heart failure. However, the utility of the GNRI in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear given the time-dependent changes in the pathophysiology of AMI and the selected endpoints. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the optimal cut-off values of the GNRI for cardiovascular events in patients with AMI. We used time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analysis to identify the optimal cut-off values for two endpoints, all-cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke), over 4 years in 360 patients with AMI between 2012 and 2020. The cumulative incidence of MACE was 11.6%. The cut-off value of the GNRI for all-cause death was 82.7 (area under the curve [AUC], 0.834) at 3 months and 90.3 (AUC 0.854) at 4 years. The cut-off value of the GNRI for MACE was 83.0 (AUC 0.841) at 3 months and 95.3 (AUC 0.821) at 4 years. The GNRI demonstrated consistently high reliability relative to other indicators of AMI. Our findings indicated that the optimal cut-off value and reliability of the GNRI for cardiovascular events varied according to the endpoints and observation periods. GNRI emerges as a crucial predictor of prognosis for patients with AMI.</p>","PeriodicalId":12940,"journal":{"name":"Heart and Vessels","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart and Vessels","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00380-024-02455-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a straightforward nutritional risk assessment tool with an established relationship with poor prognosis in patients with heart failure. However, the utility of the GNRI in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear given the time-dependent changes in the pathophysiology of AMI and the selected endpoints. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the optimal cut-off values of the GNRI for cardiovascular events in patients with AMI. We used time-dependent receiver operating characteristic analysis to identify the optimal cut-off values for two endpoints, all-cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke), over 4 years in 360 patients with AMI between 2012 and 2020. The cumulative incidence of MACE was 11.6%. The cut-off value of the GNRI for all-cause death was 82.7 (area under the curve [AUC], 0.834) at 3 months and 90.3 (AUC 0.854) at 4 years. The cut-off value of the GNRI for MACE was 83.0 (AUC 0.841) at 3 months and 95.3 (AUC 0.821) at 4 years. The GNRI demonstrated consistently high reliability relative to other indicators of AMI. Our findings indicated that the optimal cut-off value and reliability of the GNRI for cardiovascular events varied according to the endpoints and observation periods. GNRI emerges as a crucial predictor of prognosis for patients with AMI.
期刊介绍:
Heart and Vessels is an English-language journal that provides a forum of original ideas, excellent methods, and fascinating techniques on cardiovascular disease fields. All papers submitted for publication are evaluated only with regard to scientific quality and relevance to the heart and vessels. Contributions from those engaged in practical medicine, as well as from those involved in basic research, are welcomed.