Why the study?
Evidence regarding the association between atrial fibrillation and the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI was lacking.
Does atrial fibrillation increase the risk of no-reflow phenomenon in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Does atrial fibrillation increase the risk of no-reflow phenomenon in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Atrial fibrillation is an independent predictor of the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, highlighting it as an important risk factor for procedural complications.
AF should not yet alter pPCI protocols in STEMI; leaves open its role in no-reflow risk stratification.
There is a lack of evidence regarding the association of atrial fibrillation (AF) and no-reflow (NR) phenomenon in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). A total of 2452 patients with STEMI who underwent pPCI were retrospectively investigated. After exclusions, 370 (14.6%) patients were in the AF group and 2095 (85.4%) were in the No-AF group. Patients with a thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow rate <3 were defined as having NR. Patients in the AF group were older and had higher 3-vessel disease rates (24.1% vs 18.9%; P = .021) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.4 [11.7] vs 48.7 [10.5%]; P < .001). No-reflow rates were higher in the AF group than in the No-AF group (29.1% vs 11.8%; P < .001). According to multivariable analysis, AF (odds ratio: 1.81, 95% confidence interval: 1.63-2.04, P < .001), age, Killip class, anterior myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, stent length, and smoking were independent predictors of NR following pPCI. Atrial fibrillation is a quite common arrhythmia in patients with STEMI. Atrial fibrillation was found to be an independent predictor of NR in the current study. This effect of AF on coronary flow rate might be considered as an important risk factor in STEMI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaya et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: