PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 8, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología0 citationsOpen Access

Neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio is an independent risk factor for MACEs in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

WWWeiguo WangYZYongxia ZhaoKWKunpeng Wang

Key Points

  • The aim is to assess the prognostic value of the neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio (NPAR) for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing intervention.
  • Analyzed 1553 patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from January 2016 to December 2018.
  • Calculated NPAR as the admission neutrophil percentage divided by serum albumin levels.
  • Used ROC analysis to evaluate NPAR's predictive ability for MACEs with an optimal cutoff established.
  • Conducted multivariable Cox regression to identify independent predictors of MACEs.
  • 55 patients experienced MACEs during follow-up, with NPAR levels significantly different between MACE and non-MACE groups (P < 0.001).
  • ROC analysis showed NPAR had an AUC of 0.700 for MACEs, with an optimal cutoff of 17.326.
  • Kaplan–Meier analysis indicated lower event-free survival in the high NPAR group compared to the low NPAR group (log-rank P < 0.001).
  • NPAR ≥ 17.326 emerged as a significant independent predictor of MACEs with a hazard ratio of 3.014 (P = 0.004).

Abstract

Purpose Neutrophils are well-established biomarkers of systemic inflammation, whereas serum albumin levels are commonly used as reliable indicators of nutritional status. The neutrophil percentage-to-albumin ratio (NPAR), a novel composite biomarker integrating inflammatory and nutritional parameters, has shown promising predictive value across a range of clinical settings. However, its association with outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic utility of NPAR for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with ACS. Patients and methods From January 2016 to December 2018, 1553 consecutive patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled at the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical University. The NPAR was calculated as the admission neutrophil percentage divided by serum albumin concentration. Serum albumin was measured in g/L and converted to g/dL (dividing by 10) for NPAR calculation to align with conventional units. The primary follow-up endpoints were MACEs, comprising all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission. Results During follow-up, 1,524 patients completed the study; 55 of them experienced MACEs. The NPAR levels differed significantly between the MACE and non-MACE groups ( P 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.700 for the NPAR in predicting MACEs (95% CI: 0.635–0.766; P 0.001), with an optimal cutoff value of 17.326 determined using the Youden index. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed significantly lower cumulative event-free survival in the high NPAR group (≥17.326) compared to the low NPAR group (17.326) log-rank P 0.001. Multivariable Cox regression identified four independent predictors of MACEs: age ≥ 65 years hazard ratio [HR: 2.944, 95% confidence interval CI: 1.653–5.245, P 0.001]; left ventricular ejection fraction 40% (HR: 6.114, 95% CI: 2.786–13.419, P 0.001); serum creatinine 110 μmol/L (HR: 3.768, 95% CI: 1.336–10.631, P = 0.012), and NPAR ≥ 17.326 (HR: 3.014, 95% CI: 1.418–6.405, P = 0.004). Restricted cubic spline analysis confirmed a positive dose-response relationship, showing progressively increased MACE risk with rising NPAR levels ( P 0.001). Conclusion NPAR ≥ 17.326 is an independent prognostic risk factor for patients with ACS undergoing PCI and may be a valuable clinical marker for identifying high-risk patients.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698828850fc35cd7a88480fdhttps://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2026.1703203
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper