在初次经皮冠状动脉介入治疗期间,肾上腺素与维拉帕米冠状动脉远端给药预防无回流:一项随机、开放标签的试验

Ihab M. Yassin, Ashraf Ahmed, G. Abdelhady
{"title":"在初次经皮冠状动脉介入治疗期间,肾上腺素与维拉帕米冠状动脉远端给药预防无回流:一项随机、开放标签的试验","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:以往的试验显示肾上腺素在治疗无血流再流现象方面具有潜在的应用前景(无血流再流现象是一个多重发病过程,可能与缺血性损伤、远端动脉粥样硬化血栓栓塞、冠状动脉微循环损伤易感性和再灌注损伤有关(6))。本研究旨在比较原发性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)期间远端冠状动脉内输送肾上腺素与维拉帕米预防无血流循环的安全性和有效性。材料和方法:我们对接受PPCI的患者进行了一项随机、开放标签的试验。患者被随机分为三组:第一组接受远端冠状动脉内注射肾上腺素;第二组给予维拉帕米;第三组作为对照组。我们研究的主要终点是无再流发生率,定义为手术后(心肌梗死溶栓)TIMI血流等级(TFG) < 3,或者在TFG为3的情况下,TIMI心肌灌注等级(TMPG)为0或1。结果:共纳入120例患者。与对照组相比,I组和II组血管造影血流和灌注参数均有明显改善,其中肾上腺素组效果较好,仅肾上腺素组TMPG3(77.5%)明显高于维拉帕米(55%)(p = 0.037),维拉帕米组TMPG2(32.5%)明显高于肾上腺素(7.5%)(p = 0.003)。肾上腺素的无血流比维拉帕米低(25% vs 27.5%);差异无统计学意义(P=0.785)。三组患者在MACE和心力衰竭住院方面无统计学差异。结论:肾上腺素联合维拉帕米治疗PPCIs期间无血流倒流患者安全有效。进一步的研究需要更大的样本和更长的随访时间来证实这些发现
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Distal Intracoronary Delivery of Epinephrine versus Verapamil to Prevent No-Reflow During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized, Open-Label, Trial
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信