Why the study?
Does high dose intracoronary adenosine improve ST-segment resolution in patients with suboptimal myocardial reperfusion after primary PCI?
Does high dose intracoronary adenosine improve ST-segment resolution in patients with suboptimal myocardial reperfusion after primary PCI?
High dose intracoronary adenosine significantly improves immediate surrogate markers of microvascular perfusion in patients with persistent ST-segment elevation after primary PCI.
High-dose intracoronary adenosine improves immediate ST-resolution after primary PCI; confirms surrogate microvascular benefit but leaves clinical outcomes open.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to investigate the influence of high dose intracoronary adenosine on persistent ST-segment elevation after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: After successful PCI for acute myocardial infarction 40-50% of patients show persistent ST-segment elevation indicating suboptimal myocardial reperfusion. Adenosine has been studied to ameliorate reperfusion and is frequently used in a variety of doses, but there are no prospective studies to support its use for treatment of suboptimal reperfusion. METHODS: We conducted a blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled study with high dose intracoronary adenosine in 51 patients with <70% ST-segment resolution (STRes) after successful primary PCI. All patients were treated with stents and abciximab. RESULTS: Immediately after adenosine, significantly more patients showed optimal (>70%) STRes compared with placebo (33% versus 9%, P < 0.05). Mean STRes was higher after adenosine (35.4% versus 23.0%, P < 0.05). In addition, TIMI frame count was significant lower (15.7 versus 30.2, P < 0.005), Myocardial Blush Grade was higher (2.7 versus 2.0, P < 0.05) and resistance index was lower in the adenosine group (0.70 versus 1.31 mm Hg per ml/min, P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary adenosine accelerates recovery of microvascular perfusion in case of persistent ST segment elevation after primary PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stoel et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: