Search

BackgroundST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) complicated with no reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with adverse outcomes. Although several hyperemic drugs have shown to improve the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow, optimal treatment of no reflow remains unsettled. Saline infusion at 20 ml/min via a dedicated microcatheter causes (flow-mediated) hyperemia. The objective is to compare the efficacy of pharmacologicvs. flow-mediated hyperemia in STEMI patients complicated with no reflow.MethodsSTEMI patients with no reflow were randomized to receive either adenosine or nitroprussidevs. flow-mediated hyperemia. The angiographic corrected TIMI Frame Count (cTFC) and the Minimal Microcirculatory Resistance (MMR), as assessed with intracoronary pressure-thermistor wire, dedicated microcatheter and thermodilution techniques, were compared after study interventions.ResultsSixty-seven were included (30 allocated to pharmacologic and 37 to flow-mediated hyperemia). After study interventions, cTFC (40.2±23.1vs. 39.2±20.7; p=0.858) and MMR (753.6±661.5vs. 993.3±740.8 Wood units; p=0.174) were similar between groups. TIMI 3 flow was observed in 26.7%vs. 27.0% (p=0.899). Flow-mediated hyperemia showed two different thermodilution patterns during saline infusion indicative of the severity of the no reflow phenomenon. In-hospital death and non-fatal heart failure were observed in 10.4% and 26.9%, respectively.ConclusionsBoth treatments showed similar (and limited) efficacy restoring coronary flow. Flow-mediated hyperemia with thermodilution pattern assessment allowed the simultaneous characterization of the no reflow degree and response to hyperemia. No reflow was associated with a high rate of adverse outcomes. Further research is warranted to prevent and to treat no reflow in STEMI patients (NCT04685941).

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is recommended for patients with unprotected left main stenosis (ULMS). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is only recommended in specific anatomic conditions as in patients with low/mid SYNTAX score (SS). The aim of this study was to assess if the clinical and anatomic global risk classification (GRC) can enhance the indication of both revascularization therapies.A total of 407 patients with ULMS treated with CABG (n = 285) or PCI (n = 122) were prospectively collected. The decision to treat with CABG or PCI was dependent on patient and physician's choice. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, shock, or valve disease were excluded. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 3 years.Patients with low GRC (n = 151) treated with CABG vs those with PCI had similar cardiac mortality (5.9% vs 0%, respectively; P=.17) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; 18.5% vs 12.5%, respectively; P=.40). Patients classified as mid GRC (n = 175) had similar cardiac death (11.1% vs 10.3%; P=.85) and MACE rates (20.7% vs 22.4%; P=.92) with CABG or PCI, respectively. Patients with high GRC (n = 81) treated with CABG had numerically fewer cardiac deaths (16.3% vs 28.1%; P=.16) and lower MACE rates (24.5% vs 40.6%; P=.048) than with PCI. Statistical models using the GRC as a predictor of cardiac death showed better goodness-of-fit than the SS.Patients with low/mid GRC have similar mid-term outcomes with either CABG or PCI; patients with high GRC seem to benefit from CABG. Although further investigations are required, GRC is a better predictor of outcomes than SS.