Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Predicting the prognosis of diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the value of the Naples prognostic score in a real-world clinical study.
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Value of Conventional and Modified Naples Scores for In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of the NAPLES Score and Serum Uric Acid in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Evidence from Time-Dependent ROC and Time-Varying Hazard Ratio Analyses.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Naples prognostic score (NPS) evaluates the body's systemic inflammatory and metabolic status. However, its relevance for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain.
methodsThis study involved 1,485 diabetes patients following PCI from 2019 to 2023. Participants were divided into two groups based on their NPS. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included components of MACE [all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR)], as well as cardiac death and stroke.
resultsThe novel NPS model demonstrated greater predictive capacity for cardiac death in comparison to the conventional diabetes risk score (AUC: 0.711 vs. 0.560, ∆AUC: +0.151, P = 0.044).The NPS model exhibited comparable predictive power to the GRACE score with respect to MACE events, with the difference proving to be statistically non-significant (∆AUC: -0.002, P = 0.940). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed higher incidences of MACE (8.0% vs. 3.6%, P < 0.001), all-cause mortality (4.1% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001), cardiac death (2.9% vs. 0.4%, P < 0.001), and stroke (4.1% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.035) in the high-risk NPS group compared to the low-risk group. Multivariate analysis identified high-risk NPS as an independent predictor of MACE (HR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.50-3.67; P < 0.001), all-cause mortality (HR: 4.20; 95% CI: 1.95-9.04; P < 0.001), and cardiac death (HR: 6.68; 95% CI: 2.25-19.85; P < 0.001). These associations remained significant after adjusting for multiple risk factors.
conclusionHigh-risk NPS correlates with a higher incidence of cardiovascular events in diabetic patients following PCI. Additionally, NPS is a more reliable predictor of survival outcomes than other inflammatory and metabolic indicators. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.