A high Naples Prognostic Score was significantly associated with a higher prevalence of severe carotid stenosis compared to a low score (65.3% vs 56.0%, p=0.015).
Cross-Sectional (n=653)
No
Does the Naples Prognostic Score correlate with the severity of carotid stenosis?
The Naples Prognostic Score significantly correlates with the degree of carotid stenosis and may serve as a predictive tool for disease severity.
Absolute Event Rate: 65.3% vs 56%
p-value: p=0.015
The Naples Prognostic Score (NPS) is widely used, especially in cancer patients. Although it has been emphasized that this scoring system has a strong prognostic power for cardiovascular diseases, studies on cerebrovascular patients are quite limited.To investigate whether there is a relationship between the level of carotid artery stenosis and the NPS.Measurements were taken and recorded using venous blood samples taken from the patients at the time of their first hospital admission. Patients with NPS of 0, 1, and 2 were classified as the low Naples group. Patients with NPS of 3 and 4 were classified as the high Naples group. When analyzing the patients, comparisons were made according to these two separate groups.According to the cut-off values of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR; > 2.96), the lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR; 2.96), LMR (< 4.44), TG (< 180) and albumin (< 4) cut-off values, and it was 0 in 17 (2.6%) patients, 1 in 87 (13.3%), 2 in 212 (32.5%), 3 in 214 (32.8%), and 4 in 123 (18.8%) subjects.The current study revealed a significant correlation between the degree of carotid stenosis and the NPS, which can be used as a tool to predict the severity of carotid stenosis.
Özdoğru et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Carotid Stenosis (n=653). High Naples Prognostic Score (NPS 3-4) vs. Low Naples Prognostic Score (NPS 0-2) was evaluated on Prevalence of severe (>70%) carotid stenosis (p=0.015). A high Naples Prognostic Score was significantly associated with a higher prevalence of severe carotid stenosis compared to a low score (65.3% vs 56.0%, p=0.015).