ArticleScientific reports2025
Prognostic value of a combination of cardiac biomarkers and risk indices for major adverse cardiovascular events following non-cardiac surgery in geriatric patients: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guideline for the Comprehensive Perioperative Management of Older Patients With Lung Cancer (2025).Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Guideline
- Advances in biomarkers for myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery.Journal of anesthesia and translational medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative prognostic value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T and NT-proBNP for 30-day mortality in non-cardiac critically ill patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index in sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in geriatric patients are an important cause of increased mortality and morbidity. The results of current studies regarding the predictive value of the NT-proBNP, H-FABP, and AUB-HAS2 scales for cardiovascular complications are inconsistent, and there is no relevant large sample study. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether preoperative NT-proBNP, H-FABP, and AUB-HAS2 alone or in combination can effectively predict postoperative cardiovascular complications in geriatric patients. A total of 1736 geriatric patients (aged ≥ 65 years) who were scheduled for elective non-cardiac surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled. AUB-HAS2 risk assessment is required for each patient, and blood was collected 1 h before surgery for the measurement of NT-proBNP and H-FABP. The primary outcomes were MACEs within 30 days after surgery. The secondary outcomes were other complications. Its predictive value was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Of the 1736 patients, 71 (4.1%) had MACEs. NT-proBNP was a predictor of MACEs (AUC = 0.763; 95% CI 0.695-0.832; P < 0.001). When H-FABP was combined with AUB-HAS2, AUB-HAS2 increased the predictive value of H-FABP (AUC = 0.736; 95% CI 0.673-0.799; P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed increased predictive value of the modified AUB-HAS2 scale for MACEs (AUC = 0.794, 95% CI = 0.737-0.851, P < 0.001). Our study revealed the predictive efficacy and prognostic value of NT-proBNP, H-FABP and the AUB-HAS2 score alone or in combination for postoperative MACE risk assessment in geriatric patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (2019/09/27 ChiCTR1900026223, https://www.chictr.org.cn ).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.