Key result
Higher inflammatory prognostic index linked to ~7% greater 1-year MACCE risk per unit after NSTEMI PCI.
Why the study?
The prognostic role of the inflammatory prognostic index (IPI) at admission in predicting major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) in NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI was evaluated.
Does the admission inflammatory prognostic index (IPI) predict major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) in patients with NSTEMI undergoing PCI?
Cohort (n=1,142)
No
Does the admission inflammatory prognostic index (IPI) predict major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) in patients with NSTEMI undergoing PCI?
Hazard Ratio: 1.07 (95% CI 1.04–1.09)
Absolute Event Rate: 40.5% vs 7.6%
p-value: p=<0.001
The inflammatory prognostic index (IPI) at admission is a strong predictor of 1-year MACCEs in NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI, outperforming other inflammatory markers.
May aid post-PCI NSTEMI risk stratification; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
Background/Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic role of the inflammatory prognostic index (IPI) value at admission in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) in individuals with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A total of 1142 NSTEMI patients with a mean age of 61.9 ± 12.5 years were included. Admission C-reactive protein level, serum albumin level, and complete blood counts of participants were collected from hospital records. The IPI was calculated based on the following formula: C-reactive protein/albumin ratio (CAR) x neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR). An aggregate index of systemic inflammation (AISI) value was calculated using the ‘‘neutrophil count x monocyte count x platelet/lymphocyte count’’ formula. The study cohort was divided into two groups according to the median IPI value. Results: Patients with higher IPI values were statistically more likely to suffer from MACCEs within one year (p < 0.001), thus the admission IPI value was found to be associated with future development of MACCEs. Furthermore, it had sufficient discrimination power (AUC = 0.70) and predictive accuracy in identifying MACCEs compared to other inflammatory parameters such as the CAR (AUC = 0.64), the NLR (AUC = 0.64), and the AISI (AUC = 0.59). Adding the IPI to the baseline multivariable logistic regression model significantly improved the model’s discrimination and net clinical benefit effect for identifying patients who would suffer from MACCEs, with a C-index of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82–0.86) and explanatory power of 23.2% (R2 = 0.232, DeLong test p = 0.001). High-risk patients with an IPI value greater than 2.43 had significantly more adverse events (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The IPI may be a promising inflammatory index for use in clinical practice to determine the risk prediction of MACCEs in NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oflar et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (n=1,142). High inflammatory prognostic index (IPI) vs. Low inflammatory prognostic index was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) within 1 year (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.09, p=<0.001). A higher admission inflammatory prognostic index was independently associated with an increased risk of 1-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (HR 1.07 per unit increase) in NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: