Key result
Lower prognostic nutritional index linked to ~13% higher CV death or HF hospitalization per SD decrease.
Why the study?
The importance of nutritional status is underappreciated in patients with heart failure.
Does lower nutritional status, assessed by the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), predict worse clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF?
Cohort (n=12,462)
Yes
Does lower nutritional status, assessed by the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), predict worse clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF?
Hazard Ratio: 1.13 (95% CI 1.06–1.21)
Absolute Event Rate: 11.31% vs 7.09%
p-value: p=<0.001
Nutritional status, as assessed by the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), is an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in patients with both HFpEF and HFrEF.
PNI may aid risk stratification in HFpEF and HFrEF; hypothesis-generating for nutritional interventions and sacubitril/valsartan effect modification.
BACKGROUND: The importance of nutritional status is underappreciated in patients with heart failure (HF). This study aimed to describe the range of the prognostic nutrition index (PNI), and the clinical characteristics and outcomes according to PNI, in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The primary outcome was the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient data from the PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor] with ARB [Angiotensin Receptor Blocker] Global Outcomes in HFpEF) and PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI [Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor] to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in HF) trials were used to examine patient characteristics and outcomes according to quartiles of PNI. Cox regression was used to analyze clinical outcomes, and multivariable fractional polynomial interaction analysis to examine the effects of sacubitril-valsartan, according to PNI. Patients with lower PNI (poorer nutrition) were older, frailer, and had more comorbidities and worse HF status, with greater congestion. Patients with lower PNI had biomarker abnormalities indicating inflammation, bone marrow suppression, and increased collagen turnover, among other physiologic perturbations. Lower PNI was associated with worse outcomes; that is, the rate of the primary end point among patients in the first quartile was 11.31 (10.20-12.54) compared with 7.09 (6.17-8.14) per 100 person-years in the fourth quartile. These associations persisted after adjustment for other prognostic variables. PNI did not modify the effects of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF although sacubitril/valsartan seemed to have a greater benefit in patients with HFpEF with a higher PNI. CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional status, assessed using PNI, is an independent predictor of poor outcomes in HF. Evaluation of nutritional status in clinical practice, the causes of undernutrition, and whether undernutrition should be a therapeutic target, are all worthy of further investigation in HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Solano et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF) (n=12,462). Lower prognostic nutritional index (PNI) vs. Higher prognostic nutritional index (higher quartiles) was evaluated on Composite of time to cardiovascular death or first heart failure hospitalization (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.21, p=<0.001). Lower prognostic nutritional index (poorer nutrition) was independently associated with a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death in patients with both HFpEF and HFrEF (adjusted HR 1.13 per SD decrease).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: