Key result
SMuRFless status in ACS linked to ~68% higher in-hospital mortality compared to SMuRF patients.
Why the study?
Patients with acute coronary syndrome lacking standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFless) raise ongoing concerns regarding potentially poorer clinical outcomes compared with patients with SMuRFs.
Does the absence of standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFless status) affect mortality, clinical outcomes, and treatment utilization compared to having traditional risk factors (SMuRFs) in patients presenting with a first episode of acute coronary syndrome?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,650,310)
Yes
Does the absence of standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFless status) affect mortality, clinical outcomes, and treatment utilization compared to having traditional risk factors (SMuRFs) in patients presenting with a first episode of acute coronary syndrome?
This meta-analysis of 2.65 million ACS patients demonstrates that individuals without standard modifiable risk factors (SMuRFless) account for over 10% of cases and face significantly higher short-term mortality, cardiogenic shock, and LMCA/LAD involvement despite having fewer comorbidities, highlighting an urgent need for tailored clinical management.
SMuRFless ACS patients warrant heightened short-term vigilance; meta-analysis of observational data leaves open optimal risk-stratification strategies.
Background SMuRFless patients with acute coronary syndrome lack traditional modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, however, concerns remain regarding their potentially poorer clinical outcomes. Methodology This PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251021614). A single-arm meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the proportion of SMuRFless patients, while a random-effects frequentist meta-analysis compared SMuRFless vs. SMuRF patients. Statistical analyses were performed using R (version 2025.05.0 + 496; Posit). Results Thirty studies comprising 2,650,310 patients were included, of whom 356,716 (13.5%) were SMuRFless. The pooled proportion of SMuRFless patients was 0.11 (95% CI, 0.09–0.14), with substantial heterogeneity ( I 2 = 100.0%, τ 2 = 0.6932). Regarding coronary anatomy, SMuRFless patients had less multivessel disease, LCX involvement, and combined RCA/LCX involvement, but more frequent LAD and LMCA involvement than patients with SMuRFs. Despite a lower burden of comorbidities, SMuRFless status was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (RR, 1.68, 95% CI, 1.41–2.01), 30-day mortality (RR, 2.06, 95% CI, 1.16–3.63), cardiogenic shock (RR, 1.46, 95% CI, 1.24–1.70), and cardiac death (RR, 1.61, 95% CI, 1.03–2.50), whereas 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, and 5-year mortality did not differ significantly between groups. Rates of major bleeding, stroke, recurrent myocardial infarction, PCI, and antiplatelet therapy were comparable; however, SMuRFless patients were less likely to undergo CABG (RR, 0.78, 95% CI, 0.61–0.98) or receive ACE inhibitors/ARBs at discharge (RR, 0.87, 95% CI, 0.79–0.96). Conclusion SMuRFless patients represent a substantial minority of ACS patients and, despite fewer traditional risk factors, are characterized by distinct coronary anatomy and higher observed short-term adverse event rates. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251021614 , identifier CRD420251021614.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qazi et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n=2,650,310). Absence of standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFless) vs. Presence of at least one standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factor (SMuRF: hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, or diabetes) was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.41-2.01). SMuRFless status in ACS patients was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.41-2.01) and 30-day mortality (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.16-3.63) compared to SMuRF patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: