Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42598452›Full record

ArticlePostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2026

Endothelial stress ratio as a predictor of the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective study.

Esma S Ateş Ceyhun, Gökhan Ceyhun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Esma S Ateş CeyhunDepartment of Cardiology, Erzurum City Hospital, Erzurum, Türkiye.
Gökhan CeyhunDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk University Erzurum, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The no-reflow phenomenon is a major complication in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, significantly impacting prognosis. Endothelial dysfunction and systemic inflammation are central to its pathogenesis. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the endothelial stress ratio - a novel composite index incorporating fibrinogen, albumin, C-reactive protein, and lymphocyte count - for the occurrence of the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Material and methods: This retrospective study included 1256 patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical and procedural data, including Killip class, presentation type, and angiographic findings such as infarct-related artery, multivessel disease, and pre-procedural Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow, were evaluated. The endothelial stress ratio was calculated using pre-procedural blood samples. To address multicollinearity, two separate multivariate logistic regression models were constructed: Model 1 included the fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio, while Model 2 evaluated the independent predictive value of the endothelial stress ratio alongside clinical variables. Results: The no-reflow phenomenon occurred in 73 (5.8%) patients. Patients with no-reflow had significantly higher endothelial stress ratio values (138 (102-198) versus 72 (49-104), Conclusions: The endothelial stress ratio is a novel, independent biomarker for predicting no-reflow. Incorporating this ratio into pre-procedural assessment may help identify high-risk patients and guide therapeutic strategies.

Indexed as

acute coronary syndromeendothelial stress ratioinflammationmicrovascular dysfunctionno-reflow

Identifiers

PMID42598452
PMCPMC13471009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.