Observational studyScience progress
Association of the naples prognostic score with revascularization strategies in patients with prior CABG and NSTE-ACS: A retrospective single-center observational study.
Observational study in Science progress. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectivePatients with a prior history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) presenting with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) represent a high-risk population in whom revascularization decisions are frequently individualized in real-world practice. Objective biomarkers capable of supporting treatment selection in this setting remain limited. The Naples Prognostic Score (NPS), a composite index integrating inflammatory and nutritional parameters, may reflect overall clinical vulnerability.MethodsIn this retrospective, single-center observational cohort study, the association between NPS and treatment strategy selection was evaluated in 367 patients with prior CABG presenting with NSTE-ACS between January 2019 and October 2025. NPS was calculated at admission prior to coronary angiography using total cholesterol, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, and serum albumin levels. Patients were categorized into low (0-2) and high (3-4) NPS groups. Treatment strategies were determined through routine multidisciplinary clinical assessment and were not influenced by study investigators. Multivariable logistic regression and prespecified stratified sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsRevascularization was selected in 169 patients (46.0%), including 164 percutaneous coronary interventions and 5 redo CABG procedures. Patients undergoing revascularization had significantly lower NPS values. High NPS was independently associated with a lower likelihood of being selected for revascularization (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.48; p < 0.001). Procedural success rates following PCI were similar between NPS groups (89.0% overall; p = 0.161). Results remained consistent across stratified sensitivity analyses according to clinical presentation, chronic kidney disease status, and age categories.ConclusionsHigher NPS values were associated with a lower likelihood of revascularization without affecting procedural success. NPS appears to reflect disease burden and clinical vulnerability rather than treatment benefit. It may also capture acute inflammatory status and should be considered a complementary, not decisive, clinical marker.
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.