Comparative analysis of four nutritional scores predicting the incidence of MACE in older adults with acute coronary syndromes after PCI

To determine the most appropriate nutritional assessment tool for predicting the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 1 year in elderly ACS patients undergoing PCI from four nutritional assessment tools including PNI, GNRI, CONUT, and BMI. Consecutive cases diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine of the Air force characteristic medical center from 1 January 2020 to 1 April 2022 were retrospectively collected. The basic clinical characteristics and relevant test and examination indexes were collected uniformly, and the cases were divided into the MACE group (174 cases) and the non-MACE group (372 cases) according to whether a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) had occurred within 1 year. Predictive models were constructed to assess the nutritional status of patients with the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), Controlling nutritional status (CONUT) scores, and Body Mass Index (BMI), respectively, and to analyze their relationship with prognosis. The incremental value of the four nutritional assessment tools in predicting risk was compared using the Integrated Discriminant Improvement (IDI) and the net reclassification improvement (NRI). The predictive effect of each model on the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 1 year in elderly ACS patients undergoing PCI was assessed using area under the ROC curve (AUC), calibration curves, decision analysis curves, and clinical impact curves; comparative analyses were performed. Among the four nutritional assessment tools, the area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for the PNI (AUC: 0.798, 95%CI 0.755–0.840 P < 0.001) and GNRI (AUC: 0.760, 95%CI 0.715–0.804 P < 0.001) than for the CONUT (AUC: 0.719,95%CI 0.673–0.765 P < 0.001) and BMI (AUC: 0.576, 95%CI 0.522–0.630 P < 0.001). The positive predictive value (PPV) of PNI: 67.67% was better than GNRI, CONUT, and BMI, and the negative predictive value (NPV): of 83.90% was better than CONUT and BMI and similar to the NPV of GNRI. The PNI, GNRI, and CONUT were compared with BMI, respectively. The PNI had the most significant improvement in the Integrated Discriminant Improvement Index (IDI) (IDI: 0.1732, P < 0.001); the PNI also had the most significant improvement in the Net Reclassification Index (NRI) (NRI: 0.8185, P < 0.001). In addition, of the four nutritional assessment tools used in this study, the PNI was more appropriate for predicting the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 1 year in elderly ACS patients undergoing PCI.