Key result
GNRI ≤98 is linked to ~96% higher in-hospital mortality among ICU-admitted AMI patients.
Why the study?
Nutritional status is a key factor influencing outcomes in critically ill patients with AMI, but the prognostic value of the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index and its ability to improve existing risk scoring systems needed investigation.
Does the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) predict mortality in critically ill acute myocardial infarction patients?
Cohort (n=5,506)
Yes
Does the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) predict mortality in critically ill acute myocardial infarction patients?
Odds Ratio: 0.51 (95% CI 0.43–0.6)
Absolute Event Rate: 21.8% vs 10.4%
The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index is a robust predictor of short-term mortality in critically ill AMI patients and enhances the predictive accuracy of SOFA and APSIII scores.
GNRI may refine mortality prediction in ICU AMI beyond SOFA/APSIII; hypothesis-generating for interventions as observational data should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Nutritional status is a key factor influencing outcomes in critically ill patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study investigated the association between the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) and mortality among ICU-admitted AMI patients, as well as GNRI's potential to improve the predictive accuracy of current scoring systems. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data from 5,506 ICU-admitted AMI patients were sourced from three open-access critical care databases. Based on GNRI scores, patients were grouped into two categories: GNRI ≤ 98 and GNRI > 98. Statistical tools such as logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and restricted cubic splines analyzed survival trends and dose-response relationships. Sensitivity analyses, including propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability weighting (IPW), and dropping missing data analysis validated the robustness of findings. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve compared GNRI's predictive ability with SOFA and APSIII scores. A sensitivity analysis was performed using a four-tier GNRI classification: no risk (> 98), low risk (92-98), moderate risk (82-<92), and major risk (< 82) to further explore its gradient relationship with mortality. RESULTS: Patients with GNRI ≤ 98 showed higher mortality rates for in-hospital (21.8% vs. 10.4%) and 30-day (22.5% vs. 10.7%) outcomes. GNRI displayed an inverse correlation with in-hospital mortality (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43-0.60) and 30-day mortality (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.50-0.66), even after adjusting for confounders. Subgroup analysis emphasized GNRI's reliability as a predictive marker, particularly in patients with eGFR ≥ 90. ROC analysis confirmed GNRI's predictive performance (AUC = 0.64) and its enhancement of SOFA (AUC = 0.72) and APSIII (AUC = 0.66) scores (all p < 0.001). Sensitivity analyses reinforced GNRI's link to mortality. CONCLUSION: GNRI serves as a robust predictor of in-hospital and 30-day mortality among critically ill AMI patients. Its integration with existing scoring systems improves risk stratification in this high-risk population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=5,506). Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) ≤ 98 vs. GNRI > 98 was evaluated on in-hospital mortality (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43-0.60). Among ICU-admitted AMI patients, a Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index ≤ 98 was associated with higher in-hospital (21.8% vs. 10.4%) and 30-day mortality (22.5% vs. 10.7%) compared to > 98.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: