Left ventricular remodeling after primary coronary angioplasty in patients treated with abciximab or intracoronary adenosine

Adenosine as adjunctive therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

Adenosine has been tested in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to minimize the incidence of coronary microvascular obstruction (CMVO). The aim of this study was to pool all the RCTs comparing intracoronary or intravenous adenosine versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing myocardial revascularization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were scanned for eligible studies up to 5th June 2022. A total of 26 RCTs with 5843 patients were included. Efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Atrioventricular blocks and ventricular fibrillation/sustained ventricular tachycardia (VF/SVT) were the safety endpoints. Myocardial blush grade, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), infarct size, and ST-segment resolution were also assessed. Adenosine administration was not associated with any clinical benefit in terms of MACE, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. However, adenosine was associated with an increased rate of advanced atrioventricular blocks and of VF/SVT in studies with total mean ischaemic time >3 h, compared to placebo. Remarkably, among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, adenosine was associated with reduced myocardial blush grade 0-1 and TIMI flow grade 0-2, compared to placebo. Furthermore, adenosine did not show favourable effects on LVEF and infarct size.

CONCLUSION

Adenosine infusion, as adjunctive therapy in ACS, was associated with an increased risk of advanced atrioventricular blocks and increased rates of adenosine-triggered ventricular arrhythmias in patients with long ischaemic time, without providing any clinical benefit compared to placebo.

Evaluate Short-Term Outcomes of abciximab in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Objectives

This meta-analysis was to verify the short-time efficacy and safety of abciximab in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Background

Abciximab has long-term efficacy in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI, but the short-term efficacy is still controversial.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis compared with or without abciximab in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI. The relevant randomized controlled trials were included by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases and other sources. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of outcomes were calculated by the fixed-effects model.

Results

Ten randomized controlled trials with 5008 patients met inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in risk of all-cause death at 30-day (RR 0.79, CI 0.55–1.12, P=0.18), major bleeding (1.37, 0.93–2.03, P=0.11), and transfusion (1.23, 0.94–1.61, P=0.13) between the two groups. However, there were significant differences in risk of all-cause death at 6 months (0.57, 0.36–0.90, P=0.02), recurrent myocardial infarction (0.55, 0.33–0.92, P=0.02), repeat revascularization (0.58, 0.43–0.78, P=0.0004), final TIMI flow <3 (0.77, 0.62–0.96, P=0.02), minor bleeding (1.29, 1.02–1.63, P=0.04), and thrombocytopenia (2.04, 1.40–2.97, P=0.0002).

Conclusions

The application of abciximab can lead to a lower risk of reinfarction, revascularization, and all-cause death at 6 months, but a higher risk of minor bleeding, and thrombocytopenia.

Complementary Pharmacotherapy for STEMI Undergoing Primary PCI: An Evidence-Based Clinical Approach

Antithrombotic therapy is the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the acute management of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients includes therapy for pain relief and potential additional strategies for cardioprotection. The safety and efficacy of some commonly used treatments have been questioned by recent evidence. Indeed a concern about morphine use is the interaction between opioids and oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors; early beta-blocker treatment has shown conflicting results for the improvement of clinical outcomes; and supplemental oxygen therapy lacks benefit in patients without hypoxia and may be of potential harm. Other additional strategies remain disappointing; however, some treatments may be selectively used. Therefore, we intend to present a critical updated review of complementary pharmacotherapy for a modern treatment approach for STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.

Effect of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor duration on the clinical prognosis of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with no-/slow-reflow phenomenon

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) accompanied by the no-/slow-reflow phenomenon, the maintenance duration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) is controversial. We compare the efficacy and safety of short- and long-term GPI infusion in STEMI patients with the no-/slow-reflow phenomenon.

METHODS

From June 2016 to December 2019, we continuously included patients with on-set STEMI who underwent pPCI, accompanied by the no-/slow-reflow, during interventional procedures at Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital and Zhuhai Golden Bay Hospital. The hemorrhage events, heart function, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were compared between < 24 h and ≥ 24 h GPI duration groups. The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the 1-year MACE-free survival at different GPI utility times.

RESULTS

In total, 127 patients were divided into two groups based on the duration of tirofiban use (less and more than 24 h). There was no significant difference between two groups in terms of baseline characteristics, plaque condition, and coronary physiological function. The two groups showed similar in-hospital MACE (1 [1.85%] vs. 4 [5.48%], p = 0.394) and 1-year MACE-free survival (log-rank test p = 0.9085). The 1-year MACE remained consistent between the two groups in all subgroups of different risk factors of no-/slow-reflow. There was no significant difference in heart function and in-hospital hemorrhage events (3.7% vs. 1.37%, p = 0.179).

CONCLUSION

In the real world, prolonging the duration of GPI may not significantly improve the clinical outcome in patients with STEMI with no-/slow-reflow.

Routine Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Therapy in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend adjunct glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) only in selected patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study aimed to evaluate routine GPI use in STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of routine GPI vs control therapy in STEMI. Data from retrieved studies were abstracted and evaluated in a comprehensive meta-analysis. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials with 8585 patients were included: 10 trials randomized tirofiban, 9 abciximab, 1 trial eptifibatide, and 1 trial used abciximab+tirofiban; only 1 trial used dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel/ticagrelor.

RESULTS

Routine GPI use was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4% [GPI] vs 3.2%; risk ratio [RR], 0.72; P = 0.01) and 6 months (3.7% vs 4.8%; RR, 0.76; P = 0.02), and a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction (1.1% vs 2.1%; RR, 0.55; P = 0.0006), repeat revascularization (2.5% vs 4.1%; RR, 0.63; P = 0.0001), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow <3 after percutaneous coronary intervention (5.4% vs 8.2%; RR, 0.61; P < 0.0001), and ischemic stroke (RR, 0.42; P = 0.04). Major (4.7% vs 3.4%; RR, 1.35; P = 0.005) and minor bleedings (7.2% vs 5.1%; RR, 1.39; P = 0.006) but not intracranial bleedings (0.1% vs 0%; RR, 2.7; P = 0.37) were significantly increased under routine GPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine GPI administration in STEMI resulted in a reduction in mortality, driven by reductions in recurrent ischemic events-however predominantly in pre-prasugrel/ticagrelor trials. Trials with contemporary STEMI management are needed to confirm these findings.

Advances in Coronary No-Reflow Phenomenon-a Contemporary Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery no-reflow phenomenon is an incidental outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction. Despite advances in pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies, coronary no-reflow phenomenon occurs more commonly than desired. It often results in poor clinical outcomes and remains as a relevant consideration in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. In this systematic review, we have sought to discuss the topic in detail, and to relay the most recent discoveries and data on management of this condition.

RECENT FINDINGS

We discuss several pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments used in the prevention and management of coronary no-reflow and microvascular obstruction. Covered topics include the understanding of pharmacologic mechanisms of current and future agents, and recent discoveries that may result in the development of future treatment options. We conclude that the pathophysiology of coronary no-reflow phenomenon and microvascular obstruction still remains incompletely understood, although several plausible theories have led to the current standard of care for its management. We also conclude that coronary no-reflow phenomenon and microvascular obstruction must be recognized as a multifactorial condition that has certain predispositions and characteristics, therefore its prevention and treatment must begin pre-procedurally and be multi-faceted including certain medications and operator techniques in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Effect of intracoronary agents on the no-reflow phenomenon during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a network meta-analysis

Background

Despite the restoration of epicardial flow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), myocardial reperfusion remains impaired in a significant proportion of patients. We performed a network meta-analysis to assess the effect of 7 intracoronary agents (adenosine, anisodamine, diltiazem, nicorandil, nitroprusside, urapidil, and verapamil) on the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PPCI.

Methods

Database searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the 7 agents with each other or with standard PPCI. Outcome measures included thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade (TFG), ST-segment resolution (STR), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and adverse events.

Results

Forty-one RCTs involving 4069 patients were analyzed. The addition of anisodamine to standard PPCI for STEMI was associated with improved post-procedural TFG, more occurrences of STR, and improvement of LVEF. The cardioprotective effect of anisodamine conferred a MACE-free survival benefit. Additionally, nitroprusside was regarded as efficient in improving coronary flow and clinical outcomes. Compared with standard care, adenosine, nicorandil, and verapamil improved coronary flow but had no corresponding benefits regarding cardiac function and clinical outcomes. The ranking probability for the 7 treatment drugs showed that anisodamine consistently ranked the highest in efficacy outcomes (TFG < 3, STR, LVEF, and MACEs). No severe adverse events, such as hypotension and malignant arrhythmia, were observed in patients treated with anisodamine. Network meta-regression analysis showed that age, the time to reperfusion, and study follow-up did not affect the treatment effects.

Conclusions

The intracoronary administration of anisodamine appears to improve myocardial reperfusion, cardiac function, and clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. Given the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more rigorous RCTs are needed to verify the role of this inexpensive and well-tolerated regimen.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-017-0722-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prognostic Stratification of Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (PROSPECT): A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is a robust tool to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial salvage index, microvascular obstruction, and myocardial hemorrhage in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. We evaluated the additional prognostic benefit of a CMR score over standard prognostic stratification with global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE) score and transthoracic echocardiography LVEF measurement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two hundred nine consecutive patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (age, 61.4±11.4 years; 162 men) underwent transthoracic echocardiography and CMR after succesful primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were assessed at a mean follow-up of 2.5±1.2 years. MACE occurred in 24 (12%) patients who at baseline showed higher GRACE risk score (P<0.01), lower LVEF with both transthoracic echocardiography and CMR, lower myocardial salvage index, and higher per-patient myocardial hemorrhage and microvascular obstruction prevalence and amount as compared with patients without MACE (P<0.01). The best cut-off values of transthoracic echocardiography-LVEF, CMR-LVEF, myocardial salvage index, and microvascular obstruction to predict MACE were 46.7%, 37.5%, 0.4, and 2.6% of left ventricular mass, respectively. Accordingly, a weighted CMR score, including the following 4 variables (CMR-LVEF, myocardial salvage index, microvascular obstruction, and myocardial hemorrhage), with a maximum of 17 points was calculated and included in the multivariable analysis showing that only CMR score (hazard ratio, 1.867 per SD increase [1.311-2.658]; P<0.001) was independently associated with MACE with the highest net reclassification improvement as compared to GRACE score and transthoracic echocardiography-LVEF measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

CMR score provides incremental prognostic stratification as compared with GRACE score and transthoracic echocardiography-LVEF and may impact the management of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Myocardial Infarction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the present paper is to analytically review the diagnostic and prognostic role of CMR in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) survivors. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice in patients STEMI. However, risk of future events remains substantial. Assessment of the extent of myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac function and ventricular remodelling has become the focus of recent studies. Electrocardiography, angiography and echocardiography parameters, as well as risk scores, lack sensitivity and reproducibility in predicting future cardiovascular events. A major advantage of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is that it provides myocardial tissue characterization.

RECENT FINDINGS

CMR is able to quantify both reversible and irreversible myocardial injury and correlates with future events. This review will illustrate how microvascular function indices (myocardial salvage index, presence and amount of microvascular obstruction and intramyocardial haemorrhage) detectable by CMR add prognostic information and could impact on future strategies to improve outcomes in revascularized patients.

Predictors of Left Ventricle Remodeling: Combined Plasma B-type Natriuretic Peptide Decreasing Ratio and Peak Creatine Kinase-MB

Background: Previous studies reported that patients who had an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have found that measuring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) during the subacute phase of left ventricular (LV) remodeling can predict the possible course of LV remodeling. This study assessed the use of serial BNP serum levels combined with early creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) to predict the development of significant LV remodeling in AMI patients. Methods: Nighty-seven patients with new onset AMI were assessed using serial echocardiographic studies and serial measurements of BNP levels, both performed on day-2 (BNP1), day-7 (BNP2), day-90 (BNP3), and day-180 (BNP4) after admission. LV remodeling was defined as >20% increase in biplane LV end-diastolic volume on day-180 compared to baseline (day-2). Results: Patients were divided into LV remodeling [LVR(+)] and non LV remodeling [LVR(-)] groups. No first-week BNP level was found to predict remodeling. However, the two groups had significantly different day-90 BNP level (208.1 ± 263.7 pg/ml vs. 82.4 ± 153.7 pg/ml, P = 0.039) and significantly different 3-month BNP decrease ratios ( R BNP₁₃) (14.4 ± 92.2% vs. 69.4 ± 25.9%, P < 0.001). The appropriate cut-off value for R BNP₁₃ was 53.2% (AUC = 0.764, P < 0.001). Early peak CK-MB (cut-off 48.2 ng/ml; AUC = 0.672; P = 0.014) was another independent predictor of remodeling. Additionally, combining peak CK-MB and R BNP₁₃ offered an excellent discrimination for half-year remodeling when assessed by ROC curve (AUC = 0.818, P < 0.001). Conclusion: R BNP₁₃ is a significant independent predictor of 6-month LV remodeling. The early peak CK-MB additionally offered an incremental power to the predictions derived from serial BNP examinations.

No reflow phenomenon in percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is effective in opening the infarct related artery and restoring thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow 3 (TIMI-flow 3) in large majority of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However there remain a small but significant proportion of patients, who continue to manifest diminished myocardial reperfusion despite successful opening of the obstructed epicardial artery. This phenomenon is called no-reflow. Clinically it manifests with recurrence of chest pain and dyspnea and may progress to cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, serious arrhythmias and acute heart failure. No reflow is regarded as independent predictor of death or recurrent myocardial infarction. No reflow is a multi-factorial phenomenon. However micro embolization of atherothrombotic debris during PCI remains the principal mechanism responsible for microvascular obstruction. This review summarizes the pathogenesis, diagnostic methods and the results of various recent randomized trials and studies on the prevention and management of no-reflow.

Clinical benefit of adenosine as an adjunct to reperfusion in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Adenosine administered as an adjunct to reperfusion can reduce coronary no-reflow and limit myocardial infarct (MI) size in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Whether adjunctive adenosine therapy can improve clinical outcomes in reperfused STEMI patients is not clear and is investigated in this meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We performed an up-to-date search for all RCTs investigating adenosine as an adjunct to reperfusion in STEMI patients. We calculated pooled relative risks using a fixed-effect meta-analysis assessing the impact of adjunctive adenosine therapy on major clinical endpoint including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Surrogate markers of reperfusion were also analyzed.

RESULTS

13 RCTs (4273 STEMI patients) were identified and divided into 2 subgroups: intracoronary adenosine versus control (8 RCTs) and intravenous adenosine versus control (5 RCTs). In patients administered intracoronary adenosine, the incidence of heart failure was significantly lower (risk ratio [RR] 0.44 [95% CI 0.25-0.78], P=0.005) and the incidence of coronary no-reflow was reduced (RR for TIMI flow<3 postreperfusion 0.68 [95% CI 0.47-0.99], P=0.04). There was no difference in heart failure incidence in the intravenous adenosine group but most RCTs in this subgroup were from the thrombolysis era. There was no difference in non-fatal MI or all-cause mortality in both subgroups.

CONCLUSION

We find evidence of improved clinical outcome in terms of less heart failure in STEMI patients administered intracoronary adenosine as an adjunct to reperfusion. This finding will need to be confirmed in a large adequately powered prospective RCT.

Impact of intracoronary adenosine administration during primary PCI: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Aim of the present study was to evaluate all randomized trials, comparing intracoronary adenosine versus placebo in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Knowledge electronic databases were scanned for eligible studies up to February 23rd 2015. The summary measure used was risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. A total of 13 studies were eligible, including 1487 patients. Incidence of ST resolution was significantly higher in the IC adenosine group than in the placebo group (RR = 1.20 [1.05–1.38]; p = 0.008). At metaregression, a significant correlation was found between the magnitude of the adenosine-related effect on ST resolution and the mean ischemic time (p = 0.011) or the percentage of patients with the LAD as the infarct-related artery (p = 0.03). Furthermore, we found a larger increase in LVEF (p = 0.02) with a parallel reduction in the incidence of heart failure (HF) (RR = 0.50 [0.28–0.89]; p = 0.02) in the IC adenosine group. Finally, IC adenosine administration was associated with a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) both at short- (RR = 0.62 [0.39–0.98] p = 0.04) and long-term (RR = 0.61 [0.39–0.95] p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first meta-analysis demonstrating a clinical benefit for IC adenosine in hard endpoints, such as adverse cardiovascular events, in patients undergoing primary PCI.

Coronary microvascular obstruction in acute myocardial infarction

The success of a primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) in the setting of ST elevation myocardial infarction depends on the functional and structural integrity of coronary microcirculation. Coronary microvascular dysfunction and obstruction (CMVO) occurs in up to half of patients submitted to apparently successful primary PCI and is associated to a much worse outcome. The current review summarizes the complex mechanisms responsible for CMVO, including pre-existing coronary microvascular dysfunction, and highlights the current limitations in the assessment of microvascular function. More importantly, at the light of the substantial failure of trials hitherto published on the treatment of CMVO, this review proposes a novel integrated therapeutic approach, which should overcome the limitations of previous studies.

Efficacy of Adenosine in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A PRISMA-Compliant Meta-Analysis

Whether adenosine offers cardioprotective effects when used as an adjunctive therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial.To evaluate, via meta-analysis, the efficacy of adenosine in patients with AMI undergoing PCI.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.RCTs of patients with AMI undergoing primary PCI, comparing adenosine treatment and placebo groups and reporting mortality, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade, myocardial blush grade (MBG), re-infarction, left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), ST-segment elevation resolution (STR), recurrent angina, or heart failure (HF).Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane guidelines and publication bias by Egger's test. For studies reported in multiple publications, the most complete publication was used. Arms using different dosing schedules were merged. Mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) were determined.Data were extracted from 15 RCTs involving 1736 patients. Compared with placebo, adenosine therapy was associated with fewer occurrences of heart failure (RR: 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.97, P[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]=[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]0.03) and no-reflow (TIMI flow grade <3, RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.85, P[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]=[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]0.003; MBG[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]=[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]0-1, RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67-0.98, P[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]=[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]0.03), more occurrences of STR (RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.07-1.31, P[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]<[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]0.00001), but no overall improvement of LVEF (MD: 2.29, 95% CI: -0.09 to 4.67, P[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]=[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]0.06). Adenosine improved LVEF in the intravenous subgroup and the regular-dose intracoronary (IC) subgroup (0.24-2.25[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]mg) compared with placebo (MD: 2.68, 95% CI: 0.66-4.70, P[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]=[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]0.009). Adenosine was associated with a poorer LVEF in the high-dose (4-6[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]mg) IC subgroup (MD: -2.40; 95% CI: -4.72 to -0.09, P[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]=[REPLACEMENT CHARACTER]0.04). There was no significant evidence that adenosine reduced rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or re-infarction after PCI.Adenosine dosage and administration routes, baseline profiles, and endpoints differed among included RCTs. Performance, publication, and reporting biases remain possible.Adenosine therapy appears to improve several outcomes in patients with AMI after PCI, but there is no evidence that adenosine can reduce mortality rates.

Adenosine and verapamil for no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in people with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Although coronary flow is restored after PPCI, impaired myocardial perfusion (known as no-reflow) related to poor clinical outcomes is frequently observed. To overcome this phenomenon, drugs, such as atorvastatin, abciximab and others, have been tried as adjunctive treatment to PPCI. Among these drugs, verapamil and adenosine are among the most promising. No other systematic reviews have examined use of these two drugs in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing PPCI. This is an update of the version previously published (2013, Issue 6), for which the people of interest in the review were those treated with PPCI - not those given fibrinolytic therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To study the impact of adenosine and verapamil on no-reflow during PPCI in people with AMI.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of the following databases in June 2014 without language restriction: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and BIOSIS, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). We also handsearched The American Journal of Cardiology.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which adenosine or verapamil was the primary intervention. Participants were individuals diagnosed with AMI who were undergoing PPCI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected studies and extracted data. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to obtain relevant information. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), P values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in our review 11 RCTs (one new study with 59 participants) involving 1027 participants. Ten RCTs were associated with adenosine and one with verapamil. We considered the overall risk of bias of included studies to be moderate. We found no evidence that adenosine reduced short-term all-cause mortality (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.48, P value = 0.27), long-term all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.74, P value = 0.70), short-term non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 1.32, 95% 0.33 to 5.29, P value = 0.69) or myocardial blush grade (MBG) 0 to 1 after PPCI (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22, P value = 0.75). The incidence of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade < 3 after PPCI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.91, P value = 0.01) was decreased. Conversely, adverse events with adenosine, such as bradycardia (RR 6.32, 95% CI 2.98 to 13.41, P value < 0.00001), hypotension (RR 11.43, 95% CI 2.75 to 47.57, P value = 0.0008) and atrioventricular (AV) block (RR 6.78, 95% CI 2.15 to 21.38, P value = 0.001), were significantly increased.Meta-analysis of verapamil as treatment for no-reflow during PPCI was not performed because data were insufficient.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to draw conclusions because of the insufficient quality and quantity of current research studies. We considered the overall risk of bias of included studies to be moderate. Adenosine as treatment for no-reflow during PPCI could reduce angiographic no-reflow (TIMI flow grade < 3) but was found to increase adverse events. What's more, no evidence could be found to suggest that adenosine reduced all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or the incidence of myocardial blush grade 0 to 1. Additionally, the efficacy of verapamil for no-reflow during PPCI could not be analysed because data were insufficient. Further clinical research into adenosine and verapamil is needed because of the limited numbers of available trials and participants.

The REFLO-STEMI trial comparing intracoronary adenosine, sodium nitroprusside and standard therapy for the attenuation of infarct size and microvascular obstruction during primary percutaneous coronary intervention: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Microvascular obstruction (MVO) secondary to ischaemic-reperfusion injury is an important but underappreciated determinant of short- and longer-term outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Several small studies have demonstrated a reduction in the degree of MVO utilising a variety of vasoactive agents, with adenosine and sodium nitroprusside (SNP) being most evaluated. However, the evidence base remains weak as the trials have had variable endpoints, differing drug doses and delivery. As such, the results regarding benefit are conflicting.

METHODS

The REperfusion Facilitated by LOcal adjunctive therapy in STEMI (REFLO-STEMI) trial is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, open label, study with blinded endpoint analysis: Patients presenting within 6 h of onset of STEMI and undergoing planned primary PCI (P-PCI) with TIMI 0/1 flow in the infarct-related artery (IRA) and no significant bystander coronary artery disease on angiography, are randomised into one of three groups: PCI with adjunctive pharmacotherapy (intracoronary adenosine or SNP) or control (standard PCI). All receive Bivalirudin anticoagulation and thrombus aspiration. The primary outcome is infarct size (IS) (determined as a percentage of total left ventricular mass) measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) undertaken at 48 to 72 h post P-PCI. Secondary outcome measures include MVO (hypoenhancement within infarct core) on CMRI, angiographic markers of microvascular perfusion and MACE during 1-month follow-up. The study aims to recruit 240 patients (powered at 80% to detect a 5% absolute reduction in IS).

DISCUSSION

The REFLO-STEMI study has been designed to address the weaknesses of previous trials, which have collectively failed to demonstrate whether adjunctive pharmacotherapy with adenosine and/or SNP can reduce measures of myocardial injury (infarct size and MVO) and improve clinical outcome, despite good basic evidence that they have the potential to attenuate this process. The REFLO-STEMI study will be the most scientifically robust trial to date evaluating whether adjunctive therapy (intracoronary adenosine or SNP following thrombus aspiration) reduces CMRI measured IS and MVO in patients undergoing P-PCI within 6 h of onset of STEMI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registered 20th November 2012: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01747174.

The role of insulin-like growth factor-1 in development of coronary no-reflow and severity of coronary artery disease in patients with acute myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTION

Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) has atheroprotective effects via reduction in oxidative stress, cellular apoptosis, pro-inflammatory signaling, and endothelial dysfunction.

AIM

We hypothesized that low levels of IGF-1 may be associated with the severity and extent of coronary artery disease and development of the coronary no-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and investigated the role of the IGF-1 molecule in the coronary no-reflow phenomenon and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with acute STEMI in a tertiary hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was conducted among 113 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for STEMI, of whom 49 patients developed the no-reflow phenomenon. Coronary no-reflow was defined as Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 2 or less after intervention. Insulin-like growth factor-1 levels were measured in both groups. The severity and extent of CAD were evaluated according to the Gensini and Syntax scores.

RESULTS

Although IGF-1 levels were lower in the no-reflow group, there was not a statistically significant difference between the no-reflow group and the control group (116.65 ±51.72 vs. 130.82 ±48.76, p = 0.130). Gensini and Syntax scores were higher in the no-reflow group. There was no association between Gensini and Syntax scores and IGF-1 levels (r = -0.071, r = 0.479, r = -0.158, p = 0.113).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, IGF-1 levels were not statistically different between patients developing the no-reflow phenomenon and controls. There was no association between development of the no-reflow phenomenon and severity of CAD or IGF-1 levels. Nevertheless, large scale studies are needed to verify these results.

Adenosine and verapamil for no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in people with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred treatment for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Although there is restoration of coronary flow after PPCI, impaired myocardial perfusion (known as no-reflow) is frequently observed, and is related to poor clinical outcomes. In order to overcome this phenomenon, drugs have been tried as adjunctive treatments to PPCI. Among them, verapamil and adenosine are two of the most promising drugs. There are no systematic reviews of these two drugs in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing PPCI.

OBJECTIVES

To study the impact of adenosine and verapamil on people with AMI who are undergoing PPCI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases in February 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and BIOSIS, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Clinical Trials registers (Clinical Trials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, Australian & New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). We also handsearched the American Journal of Cardiology.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where adenosine or verapamil was the primary intervention. Participants were individuals diagnosed with AMI who were undergoing PPCI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected studies and extracted data. Where necessary, we contacted the trial authors to obtain the relevant information. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), P values, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs involving 939 participants in our review. Nine RCTs were associated with adenosine and one with verapamil. We considered the overall risk of bias of included studies to be moderate. There was no evidence that adenosine reduced short-term all-cause mortality (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.61, P = 0.32), long-term all-cause mortality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.22, P = 0.81), short-term non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 1.38, 95% 0.28 to 6.96, P = 0.69) or the incidence of angiographic no-reflow (TIMI flow grade < 3 after PPCI: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.07, P = 0.11, and myocardial blush grade (MBG) 0 to 1 after PPCI: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22, P=0.75). But the incidence of adverse events with adenosine, such as bradycardia (RR 6.57, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.67, P<0.00001), hypotension (RR 11.43, 95% CI 2.75 to 47.57, P=0.0008) and atrioventricular (AV) block (RR 6.67, 95% CI 1.52 to 29.21, P=0.01) was significantly increased.Meta-analysis of verapamil as treatment for no-reflow during PPCI was not calculated due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that adenosine and verapamil as treatments for no-reflow during PPCI can reduce all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or the incidence of angiographic no-reflow (TIMI flow grade < 3 and MBG 0 to1), but there was some evidence of increased adverse events. Further clinical research into adenosine and verapamil is needed because of the limited numbers of included trials and participants.

Treating and preventing no reflow in the cardiac catheterization laboratory

The no reflow phenomenon can happen during elective or primary percutaneous coronary intervention. This phenomenon is thought to be a complex process involving multiple factors that eventually lead to microvascular obstruction and endothelial disruption. Key pathogenic components include distal atherothrombotic embolization, ischemic injury, reperfusion injury, and susceptibility of coronary microcirculation to injury. Thus, pharmacologic and mechanical strategies to prevent and treat no reflow target these mechanisms. Specifically, pharmacologic therapy consisting of vasodilators and antiplatelet agents have shown benefit in the treatment of no-reflow and mechanical therapies such as distal protection and aspiration thrombectomy have also shown benefit.

Pharmacological and physical prevention and treatment of no-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

After successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, adequate myocardial reperfusion is not achieved in up to 50% of patients. This phenomenon of no-reflow is associated with a poor in-hospital and long-term prognosis. Four main factors are thought to contribute to the occurrence of no-reflow: ischaemic injury; reperfusion injury; distal embolization; susceptibility of the microcirculation to injury. This review evaluates the literature, and in particular the clinical trials, concerned with pharmacological and physical methods for prevention and treatment of no-reflow. A number of drugs may improve no-reflow experimentally and clinically, but some have not yet been associated with conclusive improvements in clinical outcome. The complex interacting factors in no-reflow make it unlikely that any single agent will be effective for all patients. Confirmed methods known to be beneficial in the prevention of no-reflow (such as aspirin therapy, chronic statin therapy, blood glucose control, thrombus aspiration in patients with a high thrombus burden and ischaemic preconditioning) should be offered to patients as often as possible, to prevent and treat no-reflow.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors with or without thienopyridine pretreatment improve outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction--a meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have casted a doubt on usefulness of routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors (GPI) in patients, pretreated with aspirin and clopidogrel, undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the effect of relevant factors, particularly thienopyridine pretreatment, on clinical benefit from GPI in randomized controlled trials (RCT).

METHODS

We searched electronic databases for RCT comparing GPI to control in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Relevant study covariates and clinical outcomes were extracted. A random effect cumulative and subgroup analyses (thienopyridine non-pretreated studies vs. pretreated studies) were performed. A weighted random effect meta-regression to determine the effect of thienopyridine pretreatment, enrollment year, control group mortality, and ischemic time on mortality benefit from GPI use was conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty studies (9 non-pretreated, 11 pretreated) with a total of 7,414 patients (3,811 GPI, 3,603 control) were included. GPI use reduces mortality (risk ratio, RR = 0.75 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.97, P = 0.03), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.50-0.80, P = 0.0002), but not reinfarction (RR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.44-1.0, P = 0.05) at 30 days. There was no effect of thienopyridine pretreatment on reduction in mortality (P = 0.39), reinfarction (P = 0.46), or TVR (P = 0.95) in subgroup analysis. Meta-regression analyses showed significant effect of control group mortality risk (B = -12.15, P = 0.034) but not of thienopyridine pretreatment, enrollment year or control group ischemic time on mortality reduction from GPI use.

CONCLUSION

The benefit from GPI use in primary PCI for STEMI appears to depend on mortality risk, and not on thienopyridine pretreatment.

Safety and efficacy of intracoronary adenosine administration in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Studies evaluating intracoronary administration of adenosine for prevention of microvascular dysfunction and ischemic-reperfusion injury in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have yielded mixed results. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of these trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intracoronary adenosine administration in patients with AMI undergoing primary PCI.

Methods: A total of seven prospective randomized controlled trials were analyzed. The endpoints extracted were post-procedure residual stent thrombosis (ST) segment elevation and ST segment resolutions (STRes), difference in peak creatine kinase (CK-MB) concentration, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade III flow (TIMI 3 flow), myocardial blush grade (MBG) 3, mean difference in post-PCI ejection fraction (EF), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure (HF) and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Safety endpoints analyzed were bradycardia, second-degree atrioventricular block (AVB), ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF) and recurrence of chest pain (CP). The endpoints were analyzed by standard methods of meta-analysis.

Results: Intracoronary adenosine therapy led to significantly more post-PCI STRes [relative risk (RR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.90; p = 0.04] and reduction in residual ST segment elevation (RR 0.82, CI 0.69–0.99; p = 0.04) but did not improve TIMI 3 flow (RR 1.09, CI 0.94–1.27; p = 0.25), MBG3 (RR 1.04, CI 0.65–1.69; p = 0.88), peak CK-MB concentration (mean difference −39.43, CI −120.223 to 41.371; p = 0.339) and post-PCI EF (mean difference 1.238, CI −5.802 to 8.277; p = 0.730). There was a trend towards improvement and MACE (RR 0.64, CI 0.40–1.03; p = 0.06), incidence of HF (RR 0.47, CI 0.19–1.12; p = 0.08) and CV mortality (RR 0.15, CI 0.02–1.23; p = 0.08) that did not reach statistical significance but no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, CI 0.25–2.34; p = 0.64). Safety analysis showed no significant difference in CP events (RR 1.26, CI 0.55–2.86; p = 0.58), bradycardia (RR 2.19, CI 0.24–0.38; p = 0.49), VT (odds ratio 0.61, CI 0.08–4.90; p = 0.64) and VF (RR 0.49, CI 0.13–1.90; p = 0.30), but significantly more second-degree AVB (RR 7.88, CI 4.15–14.9; p < 0.01) in the adenosine group compared with the placebo group.

Conclusion: Intracoronary adenosine administration was well tolerated and significantly improved electrocardiographic outcomes with a tendency towards improvement in MACE, HF and CV mortality that could not reach statistical significance.

Efficacy and safety of unfractionated heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during revascularization for an acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized trials performed with stents and thienopyridines

BACKGROUND

Early studies of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) demonstrated benefit during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Since their introduction, the magnitude of benefit of GPIs has become unclear.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that adding a GPI to unfractionated heparin in ACS patients treated with stents and thienopyridines is beneficial.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases for randomized clinical trials that studied the use of GPIs during ACS. We required that patients be randomly assigned to unfractionated heparin plus a GPI versus unfractionated heparin plus placebo (or control). Additional inclusion criteria included the use of coronary stents and periprocedural thienopyridines. Outcomes were assessed at 30 days. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird summary risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies with 7611 patients were included. Myocardial infarction was 3.1% with GPI versus 4.4% with control (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94, P = 0.014); revascularization, 1.7% versus 2.7% (RR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.89, P = 0.008); major bleeding, 2.5% versus 2.1% (RR = 1.21; 95% CI, 0.89-1.63, P = 0.22); minor bleeding, 5.5% versus 4.1% (RR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.78, P = 0.016); and mortality, 2.2% versus 2.9% (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.59-1.06, P = 0.12), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ACS patients treated with stents and thienopyridines, GPIs were associated with reduced myocardial infarction and revascularization. Minor, but not major bleeding was increased with GPIs. Mortality was similar between the groups. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Supporting information may be found in the online version of this article This work was supported by an unrestricted grant from the Florida Heart Research Institute, which had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, manuscript writing, or decision to proceed with publication. Anthony A Bavry has received research support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and serves as a contractor for American College of Cardiology Cardiosource. The other authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.

Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors

Platelets play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction. Therefore, great interests have been focused in the last decades on improvement in antiplatelet therapies, that currently are regarded as main pillars in the prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease, with special attention to glycoprotein IIb-IIIa (GP IIb-IIIa) receptors, that mediates the final stage of platelet activation. GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors, especially abciximab, have been shown to improve clinical outcome in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI. Upstream administration cannot routinely recommended, but may potentially be considered among high-risk patients within the first 4 h from symptoms onset. In case of periprocedural administration of antithrombotic therapy, Bivalirudin should be considered, especially in patients at high risk for bleeding complications. Among high-risk patients with acute coronary syndromes, an early invasive strategy with selective downstream administration of GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors is the strategy of choice, whereas bivalirudin should be considered in patients at high risk for bleeding complications. Among patients with unstable angina GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors should be considered only in case of evidence of intracoronary thrombus or in case of thrombotic complications (as provisional use). Further, randomized trials are certainly needed in the era of new oral antiplatelet therapies, and with strategies to prevent bleeding complications such as larger use of radial approach, mechanical closure devices, bivalirudin, or postprocedural protamine administration to promote early sheat removal.

New method of intracoronary adenosine injection to prevent microvascular reperfusion injury in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

The aim of our study was to examine the role of a new, simple protocol of intracoronary adenosine administration performed during primary angioplasty on the immediate angiographic results and clinical course. A prospective, single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 70 consecutive patients (64 ± 14 years, 54 men) with acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was conducted. Patients were randomized to 2 groups. Group 1 (n = 35) received intracoronary adenosine (1 to 2 mg) with a hand injection through the guiding catheter 2 times: immediately after crossing the lesion of the infarct-related artery with guidewire and then after the first balloon inflation. Group 2 (n = 35) received placebo. The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. Percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 3 flow after PCI in 32 patients (91.4%) in the adenosine group and 27 patients (77.1%) in the placebo group (p = 0.059). Myocardial blush grade 3 was observed at the end of PCI in 23 patients (65.7%) in the adenosine group and 13 (37.1%) in the placebo group (p < 0.05). Resolution of ST-segment elevation (> 50%) was more frequently observed in the adenosine than in the placebo group: 27 (77%) versus 15 (43%), respectively (p < 0.01). In conclusion, intracoronary adenosine administration improved the angiographic and electrocardiographic results in patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation undergoing PCI. Adenosine administration seemed to be associated with a more favorable clinical course.

Risk profile and benefits from Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty: a meta-regression analysis of randomized trials

Aims

Several randomized trials and a previous meta-analysis have shown significant benefits from Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors, especially abciximab. Recent randomized trials (BRAVE-3 and HORIZON trials) have shown no benefits from adjunctive Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors on the top of clopidogrel administration. However, the relatively low mortality may have hampered the conclusion of these recent trials. Thus, the aim of the current study was to perform an update meta-analysis of randomized trials on adjunctive Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors in primary angioplasty, and to evaluate by meta-regression analysis, whether the results may be related to risk profile.

Methods and results

We obtained results from all randomized trials evaluating the benefits of adjunctive Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty. The literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL) from January 1990 to September 2008. The following key words were used: randomized trial, myocardial infarction, reperfusion, primary angioplasty, Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors, abciximab, tirofiban, and eptifibatide. Clinical endpoint was mortality at 30 days. Major bleeding complications were assessed as safety endpoint. No language restriction was applied. A total of 16 randomized trials were finally included in the meta-analysis, involving 10 085 patients (5094 or 50.5% in the Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors group and 4991 or 49.5% in the control group. Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors did not reduce 30 day mortality (2.8 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.75) or re-infarction (1.5 vs. 1.9%, P = 0.22), but were associated with higher risk of major bleeding complications (4.1 vs. 2.7%, P = 0.0004). However, we observed a significant relationship between patient's risk profile and benefits from adjunctive Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors in terms of death (P = 0.008) but not re-infarction (P = 0.25).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis shows a significant relationship between benefits in mortality from Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors and patient's risk profile. Thus, Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors should be strongly considered among high-risk patients.

Myocardial no-reflow in humans

In a variable proportion of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, ranging from 5% to 50%, primary percutaneous coronary intervention achieves epicardial coronary artery reperfusion but not myocardial reperfusion, a condition known as no-reflow. Of note, no-reflow is associated with a worse prognosis at follow-up. The phenomenon has a multifactorial pathogenesis including: distal embolization, ischemia-reperfusion injury, and individual predisposition of coronary microcirculation to injury. Moreover, it is spontaneously reversible in some patients, thus suggesting that it might be amenable to treatment also when we fail to prevent it. Several recent studies have shown that biomarkers and other easily available clinical parameters can predict the risk of no-reflow and can help in the assessment of the multiple mechanisms of the phenomenon. Several therapeutic strategies have been tested for the prevention and treatment of no-reflow. In particular, thrombus aspiration before stent implantation prevents distal embolization and has been recently shown to improve myocardial perfusion and clinical outcome as compared with the standard procedure. However, it is conceivable that the relevance of each pathogenetic component of no-reflow is different in different patients, thus explaining the occurrence of no-reflow despite the use of mechanical thrombus aspiration. Thus, in this review article, for the first time, we propose a personalized management of no-reflow on the basis of the assessment of the prevailing mechanisms of no-reflow operating in each patient.

Coronary no-reflow phenomenon: from the experimental laboratory to the cardiac catheterization laboratory

Coronary no-reflow occurs commonly during acute percutaneous coronary intervention, particularly in patients with acute myocardial infarction and those with degenerated vein grafts. It is associated with a guarded prognosis, and thus needs to be recognized and treated promptly. The pathophysiology originates during the ischemic phase and is characterized by localized and diffuse capillary swelling and arteriolar endothelial dysfunction. In addition, leukocytes become activated and are attracted to the lumen of the capillaries, exhibit diapedesis and may contribute to cellular and intracellular edema and clogging of vessels. At the moment of perfusion, the sudden rush of leukocytes and distal atheroemboli further contributes to impaired tissue perfusion. Shortening the door-to-balloon time, use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet receptor inhibitors and distal protection devices are predicted to limit the development of no-reflow during percutaneous interventions. Distal intracoronary injection of verapamil, nicardipine, adenosine, and nitroprusside may improve coronary flow in the majority of patients. Hemodynamic support of the patient may be needed in some cases until coronary flow improves.

Management of 'no-reflow' complicating reperfusion therapy

No-reflow phenomenon, defined as inadequate myocardial perfusion of the adequately dilated target vessel without evidence of angiographic mechanical obstruction. It is a multifactorial, well-recognised, secondary phenomenon following reperfusion therapy such as thrombolysis or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The pathophysiological mechanisms leading to the no-reflow state are incompletely understood. Embolization of the atheromatous material to the distal vasculature and intense arteriole vasospasm caused by microembolization of platelet-rich thrombi that release vasoactive agents resulting in microvascular obstructions are likely mechanisms. Current prophylaxis and management strategies are derived from limited clinical data. Intracoronary verapamil, adenosine and nitroprusside have been most frequently studied and administered for angiographic no-reflow during PCI for acute myocardial infarction or saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions and have been shown to improve epicardial flow and microvascular perfusion. The use of distal embolic protection devices in SVG interventions also provide microvascular protection and improve clinical outcomes. However, by far the most important measures are prevention and anticipation during PCI as once no-reflow established, complete reversal of the situation may not be possible.

Intracoronary Vasodilators for the No-Reflow Phenomenon

Objective:

To review the literature relating to the use of intracoronary vasodilators to prevent and/or treat the no-reflow phenomenon in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Data Sources:

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (1966–March 2008) and Science Citation Index (1945–March 2008) using the search terms vasodilators, no-reflow, and intracoronary.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

English-language clinical trials and case series were selected from articles retrieved. References of reviewed articles were examined for additional sources. Studies relating to the use of intracoronary vasodilators in the prevention and/or treatment of no-reflow in PCI were evaluated for safety and efficacy data. Articles relating to agents not available in the US were excluded.

Data Synthesis:

Evidence of intracoronary adenosine's utility in no-reflow treatment is limited. Its use in no-reflow prevention was associated with outcomes ranging from no difference to nearly an 88% reduction in no-reflow development; the drug was generally well tolerated. No-reflow treatment with intracoronary verapamil improved flow in 87–100% of cases. Preventive trials with verapamil failed to demonstrate efficacy. Atrioventricular block requiring treatment was the most commonly reported adverse event with intracoronary verapamil. Literature on intracoronary diltiazem and intracoronary nicardipine is limited. Both agents produced greater than 95% efficacy in no-reflow treatment, while prevention studies found no-reflow developing in less than 4% of patients. Although adverse event reporting was limited, hemodynamic instability was noted in patients receiving diltiazem. Response rates ranged from 73% to 100% when intracoronary nitroprusside was studied as treatment for no-reflow associated with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Systemic hypotension was noted with nitroprusside administration.

Conclusions:

The available data are predominately from case series and retrospective reviews. Prevention of no-reflow with intracoronary vasodilators in elective PCI is not warranted. Nitroprusside should be considered first-line treatment in no-reflow associated with AMI.