ArticleJournal of inflammation research2026
Combined Prognostic Value of Nutritional and Inflammatory Indices for Predicting Functionally Significant Coronary Stenosis Verified by FFR: The PNI-SII-GINI Study.
Article in Journal of inflammation research, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Systemic inflammatory and nutritional indices have been associated with coronary artery disease burden and prognosis; however, their ability to predict lesion-level functional ischemia remains uncertain. This study evaluated whether the Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index (SII), and Global Inflammation-Nutrition Index (GINI) are associated with functionally significant coronary stenosis assessed by fractional flow reserve (FFR). Methods: In this single-center observational study, patients with angiographically intermediate coronary lesions who underwent FFR assessment were included. PNI, SII, and GINI were calculated from routine laboratory parameters. Functionally significant stenosis was defined as FFR ≤ 0.80. Discriminative performance was evaluated using receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis, and associations were assessed with binary logistic regression. Results: A total of 113 patients were analyzed, of whom 48 (42.5%) had FFR ≤ 0.80. Baseline clinical characteristics and inflammatory-nutritional indices were comparable between patients with FFR ≤ 0.80 and FFR > 0.80. ROC analysis demonstrated limited discriminative ability for all indices, with area under the curve values of 0.544 for PNI, 0.461 for SII, and 0.554 for GINI (all p > 0.05). In logistic regression analysis, none of the indices independently predicted FFR-defined ischemia. Conclusion: Systemic inflammatory and nutritional indices, including PNI, SII, and GINI, did not reliably identify functionally significant coronary stenosis defined by FFR. These findings highlight the distinction between global inflammatory-nutritional status and lesion-specific coronary physiology, reinforcing the continued importance of direct physiological assessment for ischemia-guided management.
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.