Observational study reveals NPS predicts no-reflow in patients, suggesting enhanced pre-procedural risk evaluation.
Background/Objectives: No-reflow phenomenon (NRP) is a frequent and clinically relevant complication during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs). The Naples Prognostic Score (NPS), a composite index reflecting systemic inflammation and nutritional status, may help identify patients at increased risk before the procedure. We investigated whether NPS predicts NRP in patients undergoing PCI/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) for SVG stenosis. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter observational study, consecutive post-coronary artery bypass grafting patients undergoing PCI/PTCA for SVG stenosis were analyzed. NRP was defined as post-procedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade <3 in the absence of dissection, residual stenosis, or vasospasm. NPS (0–4) was calculated from serum albumin, total cholesterol, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio. Independent predictors of NRP were assessed using logistic regression, and discrimination was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: Among 252 patients, 55 (21.8%) developed NRP. NPS was significantly higher in the NRP group than in the normal-reflow group (2.61 ± 0.95 vs. 1.73 ± 0.95; p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, NPS independently predicted NRP (per 1-point increase: odds ratio 2.577, 95% CI 1.428–5.384; p < 0.001 for univariate and 6.077, 95% CI 3.194–11.563; p < 0.001 for multivariate analysis), together with high thrombus burden (TIMI thrombus grades 4–5). NPS showed good discrimination for NRP (AUC 0.742; p < 0.001), with 75% sensitivity and 66% specificity at the optimal cut-off. Conclusions: NPS is a simple, readily available score that independently predicts angiographic no-reflow during SVG PCI and may aid preprocedural risk stratification and tailoring of preventive strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gürses et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: