Why the study?
The systemic inflammation response index (SIRI) is a novel inflammatory biomarker that reflects chronic inflammatory status, but its clinical utility in determining coronary heart disease severity needed evaluation.
Is the Systemic Inflammatory Response Index (SIRI) associated with the severity of coronary artery disease in patients with coronary heart disease?
Is the Systemic Inflammatory Response Index (SIRI) associated with the severity of coronary artery disease in patients with coronary heart disease?
Higher Systemic Inflammatory Response Index (SIRI) is significantly associated with multi-vessel coronary artery disease, particularly in females and patients over 55 years of age.
SIRI may aid CHD severity assessment; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
The systemic inflammation response index (SIRI) is a novel inflammatory biomarker that reflects the chronic inflammatory status. This study aimed to evaluate its clinical utility in determining coronary heart disease (CHD) severity. Participants in this study, sourced from the Cohort Study on the Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases with Traditional Chinese Medicine (CSCD-TCM plus ), were divided into tertiles (T) based on their SIRI values. The number of diseased vessels (single- and multi-vessel CHD) was used as a measure of disease severity, assessed by coronary angiography. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between SIRI and the severity of CHD. Among the 7706 participants, 6215 (80.6%) had multi-vessel disease. Logistic regression analysis revealed a significant association between SIRI and CHD severity (odds ratio [OR]: 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.15). Compared with males, females had a higher risk of CHD severity at the SIRI T3 tertile (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.28-2.10). Also, patients >55 years of age had a greater risk than those ≤55 years old (OR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.67-2.01). The association between SIRI and CHD severity persisted even after adjusting for confounding factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: