Search

Background: Suboptimal coronary reperfusion (no reflow) is common in acute coronary syndrome percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to develop and externally validate a clinical risk score for angiographic no reflow for use following angiography and before PCI., Methods: We developed and externally validated a logistic regression model for prediction of no reflow among adult patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndrome using data from the Melbourne Interventional Group PCI registry (2005-2020; development cohort) and the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society PCI registry (2006-2020; external validation cohort)., Results: A total of 30 561 patients (mean age, 64.1 years; 24% women) were included in the Melbourne Interventional Group development cohort and 440 256 patients (mean age, 64.9 years; 27% women) in the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society external validation cohort. The primary outcome (no reflow) occurred in 4.1% (1249 patients) and 9.4% (41 222 patients) of the development and validation cohorts, respectively. From 33 candidate predictor variables, 6 final variables were selected by an adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model for inclusion (cardiogenic shock, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with symptom onset >195 minutes pre-PCI, estimated stent length ≥20 mm, vessel diameter <2.5 mm, pre-PCI Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow <3, and lesion location). Model discrimination was very good (development C statistic, 0.808; validation C statistic, 0.741) with excellent calibration. Patients with a score of ≥8 points had a 22% and 27% risk of no reflow in the development and validation cohorts, respectively., Conclusions: The no-reflow prediction in acute coronary syndrome risk score is a simple count-based scoring system based on 6 parameters available before PCI to predict the risk of no reflow. This score could be useful in guiding preventative treatment and future trials., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Background: Clinical features among patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and initial shockable rhythms of ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia are not well-characterized., Methods: We compared clinical characteristics and coronary angiographic findings between patients with refractory OHCA (incessant ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia after ≥3 direct-current shocks) and those without refractory OHCA., Results: Between 2014 and 2018, a total of 204 patients with ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia OHCA (median age 62; males 78%) were divided into groups with (36%, 74/204) and without refractory arrest (64%, 130/204). Refractory OHCA patients had longer cardiopulmonary resuscitation (23 versus 15 minutes), more frequently required ≥450 mg amiodarone (34% versus 3.8%), and had cardiogenic shock (80% versus 55%) necessitating higher adrenaline dose (4.0 versus 1.0 mg) and higher rates of mechanical ventilation (92% versus 74%; all P <0.01). Of 167 patients (82%) selected for coronary angiography, 33% (n=55) had refractory OHCA ( P =0.035). Significant coronary artery disease (≥1 major vessel with >70% stenosis) was present in >70% of patients. Refractory OHCA patients frequently had acute coronary occlusion (64% versus 47%), especially left circumflex (20% versus 6.4%) and graft vessel (7.3% versus 0.9%; all P <0.05) compared with those without refractory OHCA. Refractory OHCA group had higher in-hospital mortality (45% versus 30%, P =0.036) and greater new requirement for dialysis (18% versus 6.3%, P =0.011). After adjustment, refractory OHCA was associated with over 2-fold higher odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.06-4.89]; P =0.034)., Conclusions: Refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia OHCA was associated with more intensive resuscitation, higher rates of acute coronary occlusion, and poorer in-hospital outcomes, underscoring the need for future studies in this extreme-risk subgroup., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.