Key result
Higher CONUT score is linked to ~48% increased 1-year mortality in HFpEF.
Why the study?
Does the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score predict 1-year readmission and all-cause mortality in adults hospitalized with HFpEF?
Cohort (n=339)
Yes
Does the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score predict 1-year readmission and all-cause mortality in adults hospitalized with HFpEF?
Hazard Ratio: 1.48 (95% CI 1.33–1.65)
Absolute Event Rate: 29.03% vs 3.53%
p-value: p=<0.001
The CONUT score is an independent predictor of 1-year all-cause mortality in HFpEF patients, offering better discrimination than the GNRI.
Objective To investigate the association of the controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score with the 1-year risk of readmission and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) after discharge, and to compare its prognostic performance with the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) and the prognostic nutritional index (PNI). Methods This multicenter ambispective observational cohort study enrolled adults hospitalized with HFpEF. Patients were stratified according to admission CONUT scores into normal nutrition (0–1 points, n = 85), mild risk (2–4 points, n = 113), moderate risk (5–8 points, n = 79), and severe risk (9–12 points, n = 62) groups. The primary endpoints were 1-year readmission and all-cause mortality; cardiogenic shock was evaluated as an exploratory endpoint. Statistical analyses included Kaplan–Meier survival curves, Cox proportional hazards regression models, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results A total of 339 patients with HFpEF were analyzed, with a 1-year follow-up completion rate of 96.03%. Higher CONUT risk grades were associated with higher crude rates of 1-year readmission (17.65 to 29.03%, p = 0.024) and all-cause mortality (3.53 to 29.03%, p < 0.001). Cardiogenic shock occurred in 12 patients (3.54%); its incidence differed across CONUT groups by exact testing ( p = 0.023), although the number of events was small and the distribution was non-monotonic. In multivariable Cox analysis, the CONUT score was independently associated with 1-year all-cause mortality (HR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.33–1.65, p < 0.001), but not with readmission (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96–1.16, p = 0.281). For all-cause mortality, the AUC of CONUT was 0.760, significantly higher than that of GNRI (AUC = 0.668, p < 0.001) but not statistically different from that of PNI (AUC = 0.730, p = 0.251). All three tools showed limited discrimination for readmission (AUC range: 0.502–0.526). Conclusion The CONUT score was independently associated with 1-year all-cause mortality in adults with HFpEF and demonstrated significantly better discrimination than GNRI. Its discriminative performance was numerically higher than, but not statistically different from, that of PNI. CONUT may therefore serve as a practical supplementary tool for post-discharge risk stratification, although external validation is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=339). Controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score vs. Normal nutrition (CONUT score 0-1) was evaluated on 1-year all-cause mortality (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.33-1.65, p=<0.001). Higher CONUT scores were independently associated with an increased risk of 1-year all-cause mortality (HR 1.48) in adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: