Prospective study developed and validated a multifactorial model for predicting CIN risk in PCI patients, suggesting improved accuracy over existing scores.
Background: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) remains a significant and potentially preventable complication following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), linked to increased morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, and higher mortality. Existing risk scores such as CHA₂DS₂-VASc and the Mehran Risk Score (MRS) fail to capture the full spectrum of risk factors.Objective: To develop and validate the MENT Score (Multifactorial Evaluation for Nephropathy after Transcatheter Intervention), a streamlined predictive model that integrates key clinical and procedural variables from CHA₂DS₂-VASc, MRS, and PCI urgency.Methods: In this prospective study, 1000 consecutive PCI patients were enrolled—500 for derivation and 500 for validation. CIN was defined as a ≥25% or ≥0.5 mg/dL rise in serum creatinine within 48 hours post-procedure. Variables from established risk models and PCI-related factors were assessed through multivariable logistic regression.Results: Six independent predictors were incorporated into the MENT Score: female sex (p=0.009), diabetes mellitus (p=0.002), peripheral arterial disease (p=0.021), contrast volume ≥200 mL (p=0.060), systolic blood pressure ≤80 mmHg or inotrope use (p=0.0005), and baseline serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL (p=0.043). A score >3 yielded strong discriminatory power:Derivation cohort: AUC = 0.770, sensitivity = 52.5%, specificity = 91.6%, accuracy = 82.4% Validation cohort: AUC = 0.861, outperforming MRS (0.76) and CHA₂DS₂-VASc (0.71) Conclusion: The MENT Score offers a concise, clinically relevant tool for early CIN risk stratification in PCI patients. Its superior predictive accuracy and ease of use make it a promising alternative to existing models, with potential to guide targeted preventive strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tantawy et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: