System Maintenance Notice

Please note that maintenance work is scheduled between 4 AM and 5 AM - CET. During this time, you may experience reduced performance. Thanks for your patience.

Publications

Journal Article Observational Study Epublish 1 citation

PubMed: 40452073 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-025-04849-8

Predicting the prognosis of diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the value of the Naples prognostic score in a real-world clinical study.

BMC Cardiovasc Disord 25(1):425

Authors: Mengzhu Zhou, Xue Zhang, Xiaohua Guo, Junying Duan, Haifeng Zhang, Xing Liu, Tong Liu, Kangyin Chen, Changle Liu

Affiliations

  • Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular Disease, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300211, China.
  • Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular Disease, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300211, China.
  • Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular Disease, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, the Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300211, China.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Naples prognostic score (NPS) evaluates the body's systemic inflammatory and metabolic status. However, its relevance for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain.

METHODS

This study involved 1,485 diabetes patients following PCI from 2019 to 2023. Participants were divided into two groups based on their NPS. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included components of MACE [all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR)], as well as cardiac death and stroke.

RESULTS

The novel NPS model demonstrated greater predictive capacity for cardiac death in comparison to the conventional diabetes risk score (AUC: 0.711 vs. 0.560, ∆AUC: +0.151, P = 0.044).The NPS model exhibited comparable predictive power to the GRACE score with respect to MACE events, with the difference proving to be statistically non-significant (∆AUC: -0.002, P = 0.940). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed higher incidences of MACE (8.0% vs. 3.6%, P < 0.001), all-cause mortality (4.1% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001), cardiac death (2.9% vs. 0.4%, P < 0.001), and stroke (4.1% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.035) in the high-risk NPS group compared to the low-risk group. Multivariate analysis identified high-risk NPS as an independent predictor of MACE (HR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.50-3.67; P < 0.001), all-cause mortality (HR: 4.20; 95% CI: 1.95-9.04; P < 0.001), and cardiac death (HR: 6.68; 95% CI: 2.25-19.85; P < 0.001). These associations remained significant after adjusting for multiple risk factors.

CONCLUSION

High-risk NPS correlates with a higher incidence of cardiovascular events in diabetic patients following PCI. Additionally, NPS is a more reliable predictor of survival outcomes than other inflammatory and metabolic indicators.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

Not applicable.

MeSH

Diabetes Mellitus, Mortality, Stroke, Incidence, Cardiovascular Diseases, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Prognosis