COMPARISON OF INTRACORONARY EPINEPHRINE TO STANDARD TREATMENTS ALONE FOR REFRACTORY CORONARY NO-REFLOW IN STEMI PATIENTS UNDERGOING PRIMARY PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION

Y SAOOD; A SALMAN; MI KHAN; M ASIM

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.277

Authors

Y SAOOD Department of Cardiology, Ayub Teaching Hospital Abbottabad, Pakistan
A SALMAN Department of Cardiology, Saidu Medical College / Saidu Group of Teaching Hospital Swat, Pakistan
MI KHAN Department of Cardiology, Ayub Teaching Hospital Abbottabad, Pakistan
M ASIM Department of Cardiology, DHQ Hospital Batkhela, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.277

Keywords:

Refractory No-Reflow, PPCI, STEMI, Intracoronary Epinephrine, Clinical Outcomes, TIMI Frame Count

Abstract

Refractory no-reflow is a serious primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) complication in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients associated with worse clinical outcomes. Intracoronary epinephrine has been suggested as a potential adjunctive therapy to improve myocardial perfusion in these patients, but its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This study included 58 STEMI patients with refractory no-reflow during PPCI treated with either intracoronary epinephrine or conventional treatments alone. The primary outcome was the improvement in myocardial perfusion assessed by the TIMI frame count at the end of the procedure. Secondary outcomes included rates of adverse cardiovascular events and clinical outcomes at 30 days. Intracoronary epinephrine was associated with significantly improving myocardial perfusion compared to conventional treatments alone (mean TIMI frame count 24.1 ± 6.7 vs. 33.6 ± 7.9, p < 0.001). This benefit was consistent across all subgroups of patients with TIMI 0-1 flow. Patients treated with intracoronary epinephrine had significantly lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days than those who received conventional treatments alone (12.5% vs. 43.8%, p = 0.02). The two groups had no significant differences in major bleeding, recurrent myocardial infarction, or all-cause mortality. Based on the results, the use of intracoronary epinephrine during PPCI in STEMI patients with refractory no-reflow is associated with improved myocardial perfusion and lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events. These findings support the use of intracoronary epinephrine as a safe and effective adjunctive therapy in this population, but further studies are needed to determine optimal dosing and timing of administration.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aksu, T., Guler, T. E., Colak, A., Baysal, E., Durukan, M., Sen, T., and Guray, U. (2015). Intracoronary epinephrine in the treatment of refractory no-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a retrospective study. BMC cardiovascular disorders 15, 1-7.

Gibson, C. M., Cannon, C. P., Daley, W. L., Dodge Jr, J. T., Alexander, B., Marble, S. J., McCabe, C. H., Raymond, L., Fortin, T., and Poole, W. K. (1996). TIMI frame count: a quantitative method of assessing coronary artery flow. Circulation 93, 879-888.

Hochholzer, W., Trenk, D., Frundi, D., Blanke, P., Fischer, B., Andris, K., Bestehorn, H.-P., Büttner, H. J., and Neumann, F.-J. (2005). Time dependence of platelet inhibition after a 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel in a large, unselected cohort of candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 111, 2560-2564.

IWASAKI, K., KUSACHI, S., TOMINAGA, Y., KITA, T., and TANIGUCHI, G. (1991). Coronary artery spasm demonstrated by coronary angiography in a patient with acute myocarditis resembling acute myocardial infarction; a case report. Japanese journal of medicine 30, 573-577.

Jafari Afshar, E., Samimisedeh, P., Tayebi, A., Shafiabadi Hassani, N., Rastad, H., and Yazdani, S. (2023). Efficacy and safety of intracoronary epinephrine for the management of the no-reflow phenomenon following percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic-review study. Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease 17, 17539447231154654.

Navarese, E. P., Rao, S. V., and Krucoff, M. W. (2019). Age, STEMI, and cardiogenic shock: never too old for PCI? , Vol. 73, pp. 1901-1904. American College of Cardiology Foundation Washington, DC.

Niccoli, G., Burzotta, F., Galiuto, L., and Crea, F. (2009). Microvascular no-reflow in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol 54, 281-292.

Niu, X., Zhang, J., Bai, M., Peng, Y., Sun, S., and Zhang, Z. (2018). Effect of intracoronary agents on the no-reflow phenomenon during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a network meta-analysis. BMC cardiovascular disorders 18, 1-15.

Pedersen, S. S., Lemos, P. A., van Vooren, P. R., Liu, T. K., Daemen, J., Erdman, R. A., Smits, P. C., Serruys, P. W., and van Domburg, R. T. (2004). Type D personality predicts death or myocardial infarction after bare metal stent or sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: a Rapamycin-Eluting Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (RESEARCH) registry substudy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 44, 997-1001.

Rezkalla, S. H., and Kloner, R. A. (2002). No-reflow phenomenon. Circulation 105, 656-662.

Turi, Z. G. (2008). Vascular occlusion after vascular closure: rare but not rare enough. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions 72, 525-526.

Yassin, I., Ahmed, A., and Abdelhady, G. (2021). Distal Intracoronary Delivery of Epinephrine versus Verapamil to Prevent No-Reflow During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized, Open-Label, Trial. Cardiol Vasc Res 5, 1-6.