Why the study?
What are the recommended pharmacological and device-based strategies for the prevention and treatment of no-reflow during primary PCI for STEMI?
What are the recommended pharmacological and device-based strategies for the prevention and treatment of no-reflow during primary PCI for STEMI?
This review summarizes ESC guideline-recommended pharmacological and device-based strategies for managing no-reflow during primary PCI for STEMI, highlighting that up to 50% of cases are spontaneously reversible.
Supports ESC-guided prevention and treatment of no-reflow in STEMI PCI; leaves open prospective validation of spontaneous reversibility rates.
No-reflow phenomenon occurs frequently during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and it has a strong negative impact on outcome. Prevention of no-reflow has to be defined as any attempt to prevent its occurrence prior to or during the recanalization procedure. Strategy of prevention may be pharmacological or device based. Among drugs, abciximab is indicated by European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for prevention of no-reflow (class of recommendation IIa and level of evidence B). Among devices used for preventing no-reflow, manual thrombus aspiration only has been associated with a reduction of no-reflow and lower mortality at follow-up and is currently indicated in the ESC guidelines (class IIa of recommendation and level B of evidence). Treatment of no-reflow has to be defined as any attempt to treat its occurrence after coronary recanalization. Strategy of treatment may be pharmacological or device based. Adenosine and verapamil are indicated by ESC guidelines for treatment of no-reflow (class of recommendation IIb and level of evidence B and C, respectively). Serial assessment of myocardial perfusion showed that in up to 50% of patients no-reflow is spontaneously reversible. This finding may open new scenarios, as mechanisms of reversibility may become future therapeutic targets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Niccoli et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: