Key result
A moderate-to-high nutritional risk, assessed by the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index, was associated with a significantly increased risk of developing non-valvular atrial fibrillation (OR 28.000) in older patients with heart failure.
Why the study?
Lower GNRI values are associated with worse prognosis in HFrEF, motivating an investigation into the relationship between malnutrition and follow-up cardiovascular events.
Does a lower Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) predict cardiovascular events and the development of non-valvular atrial fibrillation in patients with HFrEF?
Cohort (n=362)
No
Does a lower Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) predict cardiovascular events and the development of non-valvular atrial fibrillation in patients with HFrEF?
Odds Ratio: 28
Absolute Event Rate: 45.7% vs 2.9%
p-value: p=<0.001
A lower Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a significant predictor of adverse cardiovascular events, particularly mortality and the development of non-valvular atrial fibrillation, in patients with HFrEF.
GNRI may aid risk stratification in HFrEF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
PURPOSE: The geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) is a simple and objective nutritional assessment tool for elderly patients. Lower GNRI values are associated with a worse prognosis in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Our aim is to investigate the relationship between malnutrition and follow-up cardiovascular (CV) events in HFrEF. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 362 patients with HFrEF. The baseline GNRI was calculated at the first visit. The patients were divided into three groups according to the GNRI: >98, no-risk group; 92 to ≤98, low risk group; 82 to <92, moderate‑to‑high‑risk group. The study endpoint was a composite of follow-upCV events, including all-cause mortality, non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) , need for cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, HfrEF‑related hospitalizations and need for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). RESULTS: Follow-up data showed that the group with moderate-to-high risk had a significantly higher incidence of NVAF, PCIs and all-cause mortality compared to other groups (p<0.001, p: 0.026 and p0.05). Mean GNRI value was 83.3 in NVAF patients and 101.1 in patients without NVAF (p<0.001). Kaplan Meier survival analysis showed that patients from the group with moderate-to-high risk had a significantly worse survival rate (p < 0.001). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, the group with moderate-to‑high risk (HR=3.872) and ICD implantations (HR=4.045) were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: The GNRI value may have a potential role for predicting future events, especially NVAF in patients with HfrEF (Tab. 4, Fig. 2, Ref. 27).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaplan et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=362). Moderate-to-high nutritional risk (GNRI 82 to <92) vs. No nutritional risk (GNRI >98) was evaluated on Development of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) (OR 28.000, p=<0.001). A moderate-to-high nutritional risk, assessed by the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index, was associated with a significantly increased risk of developing non-valvular atrial fibrillation (OR 28.000) in older patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: