1.
Clinical outcomes of nicorandil administration in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Geng, N, Ren, L, Xu, L, Zou, D, Pang, W
BMC cardiovascular disorders. 2021;(1):488
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the treatment of choice in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and no-reflow phenomenon is still an unsolved problem. METHODS We searched PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant randomized controlled trials. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events and the secondary endpoint was the incidences of no-reflow phenomenon and complete resolution of ST-segment elevation. RESULTS Eighteen randomized controlled trials were enrolled. Nicorandil significantly reduced the incidence of no-reflow phenomenon (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36-0.59; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and major adverse cardiac events (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.64; P < 0.001; I2 = 52%). For every single outcome of major adverse cardiac events, only heart failure and ventricular arrhythmia were significantly improved with no heterogeneity (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57, P < 0.001; OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.60, P < 0.001 respectively). A combination of intracoronary and intravenous nicorandil administration significantly reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiac events with no heterogeneity (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.43, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), while a single intravenous administration could not (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40-1.06, P = 0.09; I2 = 52%). CONCLUSIONS Nicorandil can significantly improve no-reflow phenomenon and major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The beneficial effects on major adverse cardiac events might be driven by the improvements of heart failure and ventricular arrhythmia. A combination of intracoronary and intravenous administration might be an optimal usage of nicorandil.
2.
The predictors of no reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis.
Fajar, JK, Heriansyah, T, Rohman, MS
Indian heart journal. 2018;(Suppl 3):S406-S418
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the no reflow risk factors after percutaneous coronary intervention in ST elevation myocardial infarction patients. METHOD Sample size, mean±standard deviation (SD) or frequencies (percent) of normal and no reflow groups were extracted from each study. RESULTS Of 27 retrospective and prospective studies, we found that increasing risks of no reflow were associated with advanced age, male, family history of coronary artery disease, smoking, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, delayed reperfusion, killip class ≥2, elevated blood glucose, increased creatinine, elevated creatine kinase (CK), higher heart rate, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), collateral flow ≤1, longer lesion length, multivessel disease, reference luminal diameter, initial thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow, and high thrombus burden. Moreover, initial TIMI flow ≤1 and high thrombus burden had the greater impact on no reflow (OR95%CI=3.83 [2.77-5.29], p<0.0001 and 3.69 [2.39-5.68], p<0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION Our meta-analysis reveals that initial TIMI flow ≤1 and high thrombus burden are the most impacted no reflow risk factors.
3.
Short-term effect of verapamil on coronary no-reflow associated with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Su, Q, Li, L, Liu, Y
Clinical cardiology. 2013;(8):E11-6
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intracoronary verapamil injection in the prevention and treatment of coronary no-reflow after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). HYPOTHESIS Intracoronary verapamil injection may be beneficial in preventing no-reflow/slow-flow after PCI. METHODS We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database. Randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of intracoronary verapamil infusion vs control in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were included. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) . RESULTS Seven trials involving 539 patients were included in the analysis. Verapamil treatment was significantly more effective in decreasing the incidence of no-reflow (risk ratio [RR]: 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23 to 0.50) as well as reducing the corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame count (CTFC) (weighted mean difference: -11.62; 95% CI: -16.04 to -7.21) and improving the TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) (RR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.64). Verapamil also reduced the 30-day wall motion index (WMI) compared to the control. Moreover, the procedure reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in ACS patients during hospitalization (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.80) and 2 months after PCI (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.95). However, administration of verapamil did not provide an additional improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction regardless of the time that had passed post-PCI. CONCLUSIONS Intracoronary verapamil injection is beneficial in preventing no-reflow/slow-flow, reducing CTFC, improving TMPG, and lowering WMI. It is also likely to reduce the 2-month MACEs in ACS patients post-PCI.