Key result
Distal intracoronary delivery of epinephrine resulted in a 25% incidence of no-reflow compared to 27.5% with verapamil during primary percutaneous coronary intervention, with no statistically significant difference.
Why the study?
Previous trials showed promising potential for epinephrine in treating no-reflow, prompting a direct comparison of distal intracoronary epinephrine versus verapamil to prevent no-reflow during primary PCI.
RCT (n=120)
Open-label
Randomized
No
Supports distal intracoronary epinephrine or verapamil to prevent no-reflow in primary PCI; extends randomized evidence versus control.
Background: Previous trials showed a promising potential use of epinephrine in the treatment of no-reflow phenomenon (the no-reflow phenomenon is multiple pathogenetic processes, which may be attributed to ischemic injuries, distal atherothrombotic embolization, coronary-microcirculation susceptibility to injury, and reperfusion injuries (6)). This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of distal intracoronary delivery of epinephrine versus verapamil to prevent no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Materials and Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label, trial on patients undergoing PPCI. Patients were randomized to one of three groups: group I who received distal intracoronary administration of epinephrine; group II who received verapamil; and group III who served as a control group. The primary endpoint in our study was the incidence of no-reflow, defined as a post-procedural (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) TIMI flow grade (TFG) is < 3 or, in the case of a TFG of 3, when TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) is 0 or 1. Results: A total of 120 patients were randomized. The angiographic flow and perfusion parameters were significantly improved in group I and II versus the control group, with better results in epinephrine group only TMPG3 was significantly higher with epinephrine (77.5%) than verapamil (55%) (p = 0.037) and TMPG2 was higher in verapamil (32.5%) than epinephrine (7.5%) (p = 0.003). No reflow is lower with epinephrine than verapamil (25% vs 27.5%); however, with no statistically significant difference (P=0.785). Patients in the three groups has no statistical significant difference in (MACE) or heart failure hospitalization. Conclusion: Epinephrine and verapamil are safe and effective in managing patients with no-reflow during PPCIs. Further studies with a larger sample and a longer duration of follow-up are required to confirm these findings
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yassin et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in ST-elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=120). Epinephrine vs. Verapamil (200 µg) or Control was evaluated on Incidence of no-reflow (post-procedural TIMI flow grade < 3 or TIMI flow grade 3 with TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 0 or 1) (p=0.785). Distal intracoronary delivery of epinephrine resulted in a 25% incidence of no-reflow compared to 27.5% with verapamil during primary percutaneous coronary intervention, with no statistically significant difference.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: