ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Relationship between red cell distribution width-to-albumin ratio and major adverse cardiovascular events among individuals with acute myocardial infarction.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Association of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease with coronary plaque vulnerability and prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Association of the RDW-to-albumin ratio with MAFLD and hepatic fibrosis in the U.S. population: a national cross-sectional study.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Red blood cell distribution width-to-albumin ratio and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a two-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model for myocardial hypoperfusion after primary PCI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Red cell distribution width (RDW) and albumin have been individually linked to adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the prognostic value of their composite index, the red cell distribution width-to-albumin ratio (RAR), in AMI patients remains under-explored. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 917 AMI patients. The main outcome was in-hospital MACEs, including 28-day death, non-fatal stroke, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization, and hospitalization for heart failure or angina. Multi-variable logistic regression analysis was used to calculate their odd ratio (OR) and corresponding confidence interval (95%CI) with adjustments that assessed the relationship RAR index (categorical or continuous variable) of with MACEs among individuals with AMI. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) models were used to assess the dose-response relationship between RAR index and the incidence of MACEs. In addition, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was fitted to assess the accuracy of RAR index in predicting MACEs. Results: The cohort had a mean age of 58.7 ± 9.6 years, with 56% males. Higher RAR quartiles were associated with older age, higher MACEs incidence, and lower BMI, cholesterol, eGFR, and blood pressure (all Conclusion: The predictive value of RAR surpasses that of RDW or albumin alone and varies by sex and AMI subtype. RAR holds promise as a simple, cost-effective biomarker for risk stratification in AMI patients, warranting further validation in prospective studies.
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.