Key result
Delayed coronary artery stenting in STEMI patients with massive thrombosis improved myocardial perfusion (MBG 2-3) compared to immediate stenting (81.8% vs 64%; OR 2.53; p=0.039).
Why the study?
To evaluate whether delayed coronary artery stenting reduces slow/no-reflow incidence compared with immediate stenting during primary PCI in patients with STEMI and massive culprit artery thrombosis.
Does delayed coronary artery stenting reduce the incidence of slow/no-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute STEMI and massive culprit arterial thrombosis compared to immediate stenting?
Observational (n=105)
No
Does delayed coronary artery stenting reduce the incidence of slow/no-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute STEMI and massive culprit arterial thrombosis compared to immediate stenting?
Effect estimate: OR 2.53
Absolute Event Rate: 81.8% vs 64%
p-value: p=0.039
Delayed coronary stenting in STEMI patients with massive thrombosis may improve myocardial perfusion and reduce slow/no-reflow compared to immediate stenting.
May support delayed stenting for better perfusion in thrombotic STEMI; hypothesis-generating and requires RCT confirmation.
Aim . To assess whether delayed coronary artery stenting (CAS) can reduce the slow/no-reflow incidence in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and massive thrombosis (TTG ≥3) of the infarct-related coronary artery (IRCA) compared with immediate CAS within primary PCI. Material and methods . Out of 3651 primary PCIs performed for acute STEMI in the period from January 2016 to May 2020 at the Mytishchi City Clinical Hospital, the retrospective analysis included 105 patients with massive IRCA thrombosis (TTG ≥3). The patients were divided into two groups: first group (n=55) — delayed CAS, second group (n=50) — immediate CAS. In the immediate CAS group, the PCI procedure ended with routine stent implantation, and in the delayed CAS group, stent implantation was delayed for at least 5 days. Results . In the delayed CAS group in comparison with immediate one, the slow/no-reflow phenomenon developed much less frequently in the form of a significant increase in the prevalence of TIMI 3 flow, better myocardial perfusion of myocardial blush grade (MBG) 2-3 (81,8 vs 64%; odds ratio (OR) 2,53; p=0,039) and ST segment resolution ≥70% (87,3% vs 58%; OR 4,97; p=0,001). Conclusion . Delayed CAS in patients with STEMI with massive thrombosis (TTG ≥3) of IRCA reduces the risk of slow/no-reflow phenomenon and can be considered as a possible alternative treatment vs immediate CAS, provided that stable coronary flow is restored before TIMI 3.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Аzarov et al. (2021) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with massive thrombosis (n=105). Delayed coronary artery stenting (CAS) vs. Immediate CAS was evaluated on Myocardial perfusion of myocardial blush grade (MBG) 2-3 (OR 2.53, p=0.039). Delayed coronary artery stenting in STEMI patients with massive thrombosis improved myocardial perfusion (MBG 2-3) compared to immediate stenting (81.8% vs 64%; OR 2.53; p=0.039).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: