ArticleScientific reports2025
Prognostic implications of the high sensitivity C-reactive protein to albumin ratio for major cardiovascular adverse events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The prognostic significance of the C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CAR) in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery has not been conclusively determined. This study aimed to investigate the correlation and predictive capacity of the CAR for major perioperative adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in noncardiac surgical patients. Individuals who underwent noncardiac surgical procedures were identified within the perioperative medicine database (INSPIRE 1.1) and stratified into tertiles on the basis of the CAR. The associations between the CAR and the risk of MACEs (all-cause death, perioperative myocardial infarction, and acute heart failure) were analysed via Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, and restricted cubic splines were subsequently used to examine the shape of the associations. Additionally, the CAR's incremental predictive value for MACEs was evaluated using the C statistic, continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), in order to quantify the improvement in predictive performance achieved by adding the CAR to the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI). The feature significance and predictive models were developed via the Boruta algorithm and machine learning techniques. A total of 7,366 patients were included. There was a significant difference in the perioperative MACE risk among the three groups (tertiles 1 to 3: 0.24% vs. 0.69% vs. 1.63%; log-rank P < 0.001). Compared with patients in the lowest tertile, those with the highest CAR had a significantly increased risk of MACEs (hazard ratio [HR] 4.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53-12.86, P = 0.006), and an L-shaped association was observed. For each SD (standard deviation) increase in the CAR, the risk of perioperative MACE increased by 1.22 times (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.06-1.41). Furthermore, incorporating the CAR into the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) or baseline risk models significantly enhanced the ability of the CAR to predict perioperative MACEs. The CatBoost algorithm model showed the best performance (AUC = 0.865). The CAR was associated with an increased risk of perioperative MACEs in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, indicating its potential as a valuable and reliable prognostic tool for evaluating the risk of perioperative MACEs.
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.