ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2024
The Predictive Value of the Inflammatory Prognostic Index for Detecting No-Reflow in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Inflammatory Prognostic Index: A Novel Predictor of In-Stent Restenosis Following Drug-Eluting Stent-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Identification and Management Strategies for Intracoronary High Thrombus Burden in Patients With STEMI: A Practical Experience and Literature Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- The Role of the Inflammatory Prognostic Index in Patients with Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Observational
- Inflammation and No-Reflow: Can it be a Game-Changer?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Induced-No-reflow in Saphenous Vein Grafts.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
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
backgroundNo-reflow (NR) is characterized by an acute reduction in coronary flow that is not accompanied by coronary spasm, thrombosis, or dissection. Inflammatory prognostic index (IPI) is a novel marker that was reported to have a prognostic role in cancer patients and is calculated by neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) multiplied by C-reactive protein/albumin ratio.
objectiveWe aimed to investigate the relationship between IPI and NR in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI).
methodsA total of 1541 patients were enrolled in this study (178 with NR and 1363 with reflow). Lasso panelized shrinkage was used for variable selection. A nomogram was created based on IPI for detecting the risk of NR development. Internal validation with Bootstrap resampling was used for model reproducibility. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was accepted as a significance level for statistical analyses.
resultsIPI was higher in patients with NR than in patients with reflow. IPI was non-linearly associated with NR. IPI had a higher discriminative ability than the systemic immune-inflammation index, NLR, and CRP/albumin ratio. Adding IPI to the baseline multivariable logistic regression model improved the discrimination and net-clinical benefit effect of the model for detecting NR patients, and IPI was the most prominent variable in the full model. A nomogram was created based on IPI to predict the risk of NR. Bootstrap internal validation of nomogram showed a good calibration and discrimination ability.
conclusionThis is the first study that shows the association of IPI with NR in STEMI patients who undergo pPCI.
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.