Heart attacks are scary. But what happens after the initial emergency is often less clear. A large review looked at 18,715 adults who had acute coronary syndrome and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. This is a procedure where doctors open blocked arteries. The researchers focused on a specific blood marker called pan-immune-inflammation value or PIV. This number measures how active your immune system is. High levels often mean your body is fighting something hard. The team found that higher PIV scores were linked to worse results. Patients with high scores faced a greater risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. This group also had higher chances of dying from any cause or dying from heart problems specifically. The data also showed that high PIV helped doctors predict a specific complication called no-reflow. This happens when blood flow does not return properly after the procedure. It also predicted kidney injury after contrast dye was used during the test. However, the certainty of these findings varies. The evidence for predicting major events was low. The evidence for death and no-reflow was moderate. The evidence for kidney injury was very low. These gaps exist because the studies used different methods and had small numbers for some outcomes. The review noted concerns about bias in the original studies. This means the results might not be perfect. Doctors should see PIV as a helpful extra tool. It is not ready for routine use yet. More research with many centers is needed to confirm these results. We must compare this new marker to the ones doctors already use. Only then can we know if it truly adds value to patient care.
Higher pan-immune-inflammation value linked to worse outcomes after PCI for ACSHigh inflammation scores predict worse heart outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled data from 18,715 adults with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to evaluate the association between the pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV) and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), with secondary outcomes including all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, angiographic no-reflow or slow-flow, and post-contrast renal injury.
Higher PIV was associated with study-defined MACE (adjusted HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20–2.27) and all-cause mortality (HR 3.51, 95% CI 2.15–5.74). A single study reported an association with cardiac mortality (HR 3.24, 95% CI 1.34–7.81). PIV showed consistent discrimination for no-reflow or slow-flow (AUC 0.828, 95% CI 0.808–0.846) but heterogeneous discrimination for post-contrast renal injury (AUC 0.771, 95% CI 0.617–0.875).
Limitations include observational designs, small numbers of studies for several outcomes, heterogeneous cut-offs, and risk-of-bias concerns. Certainty was low for MACE and cardiac mortality, moderate for all-cause mortality and no-reflow or slow-flow, and very low for post-contrast renal injury.
PIV should be regarded as a promising supplementary marker requiring prospective multicentre validation, comparison with established inflammatory indices, and assessment of incremental value beyond GRACE or TIMI before routine clinical use.