Table_1_Predictive Value of Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis.pdf
Background: Low Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index has been identified as an index of impaired nutritional state. The objective of the meta-analysis was to assess the association of the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) with adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).
Methods: Relevant studies were identified by comprehensively searching PubMed and Embase databases in May 2021. Studies assessing the association of GNRI with all-cause mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with CAD were included. The predictive value of GNRI was summarized by pooling multivariable adjusted risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) per GNRI point decrease or the lowest vs. the highest GNRI group.
Results: A total of eight studies involving 9277 patients with CAD were analyzed. Meta-analysis showed that the lowest GNRI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.68–2.63) and MACEs (RR 2.84; 95% CI 1.56–5.16), respectively. Furthermore, per point decrease in GNRI was associated with 8 and 10% additional risk of all-cause mortality and MACEs. Subgroup analysis indicated that the value of low GNRI in predicting all-cause mortality was not affected by subtype of patients or follow-up duration.
Conclusion: Low GNRI score at baseline was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with CAD. The nutritional state estimated by the GNRI score could provide important predictive information in patients with CAD.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ajcn/82.4.777
- https://doi.org//10.1097/MCO.0b013e3283186f59
- https://doi.org//10.3390/jcm10112247
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s40520-020-01656-3
- https://doi.org//10.1159/000495999
- https://doi.org//10.1155/2019/4796598
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s12603-015-0572-2
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jjcc.2016.09.004
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.02.051
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00380-020-01558-4
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.numecd.2020.05.016
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
- https://doi.org//10.2307/2533446
- https://doi.org//10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.nut.2021.111243
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clnu.2021.01.042
- https://doi.org//10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597
- https://doi.org//10.5551/jat.47654
- https://doi.org//10.1097/JCN.0000000000000674
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jjcc.2016.05.009
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jjcc.2018.01.012
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.02.039
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00380-020-01659-0
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00380-018-1201-x
- https://doi.org//10.1002/jcp.28350
CC BY 4.0