Distal Intracoronary Delivery of Epinephrine versus Verapamil to Prevent No-Reflow During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized, Open-Label, Trial
{"title":"Distal Intracoronary Delivery of Epinephrine versus Verapamil to Prevent No-Reflow During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized, Open-Label, Trial","authors":"Ihab M. Yassin, Ashraf Ahmed, G. Abdelhady","doi":"10.33425/2639-8486.1120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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","PeriodicalId":72522,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology & vascular research (Wilmington, Del.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology & vascular research (Wilmington, Del.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33425/2639-8486.1120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
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