Evidence Hub

Association between extremely high prognostic nutritional index and all-cause mortality in patients with coronary artery disease: secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study in China

Ting-Ting Wu, YingBing Pan, Xiao-Yu Zhi, Chang-Jiang Deng, Shun Wang, Xiao-Xia Guo, Xiangeng Hou, Yi Yang et al.

BMJ Open, 2024

7,515 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

Objectives Decreased prognostic nutritional index (PNI) was associated with adverse outcomes in many clinical diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between baseline PNI value and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Design The Personalized Antiplatelet Therapy According to CYP2C19 Genotype in Coronary Artery Disease (PRACTICE) study, a prospective cohort study of 15 250 patients with CAD, was performed from December 2016 to October 2021. The longest follow-up period was 5 years. This study was a secondary analysis of the PRACTICE study. Setting The study setting was Xinjiang Medical University Affiliated First Hospital in China. Participants Using the 50th and 90th percentiles of the PNI in the total cohort as two cut-off limits, we divided all participants into three groups: Q1 (PNI <51.35, n = 7515), Q2 (51.35 ≤ PNI < 59.80, n = 5958) and Q3 (PNI ≥ 59.80, n = 1510). The PNI value was calculated as 10 × serum albumin (g/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (per mm3). Primary outcome The primary outcome measure was mortality, including all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiac mortality (CM). Results In 14 983 participants followed for a median of 24 months, a total of 448 ACM, 333 CM, 1162 major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 1276 major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were recorded. The incidence of adverse outcomes was significantly different among the three groups (p <0.001). There were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 7,515 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free