dc.contributor.author
Gómez Lara, Josep
dc.contributor.author
Gracida Blancas, Montserrat
dc.contributor.author
Rivero, Fernando
dc.contributor.author
Gutiérrez Barrios, Alejandro
dc.contributor.author
Muntané Carol, Guillem
dc.contributor.author
Romaguera, Rafael
dc.contributor.author
Fuentes, Lara
dc.contributor.author
Marcano, Ana Lucrecia
dc.contributor.author
Roura i Ferrer, Gerard
dc.contributor.author
Ferreiro Guitiérrez, José Luis
dc.contributor.author
Teruel, Luis
dc.contributor.author
Brugaletta, Salvatore
dc.contributor.author
Alfonso, Fernando
dc.contributor.author
Comín Colet, Josep
dc.contributor.author
Gómez Hospital, Joan Antoni
dc.date.issued
2023-10-09T12:16:00Z
dc.date.issued
2023-10-09T12:16:00Z
dc.date.issued
2023-06-22
dc.date.issued
2023-09-04T12:47:29Z
dc.identifier
https://hdl.handle.net/2445/202725
dc.description.abstract
BACKGROUND: ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction complicated with no reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with adverse outcomes. Although several hyperemic drugs have been shown to improve the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 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 pharmacologic versus flow-mediated hyperemia in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction complicated with no reflow. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the RAIN-FLOW (Treatment of Slow-Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow-Mediated Hyperemia) study, 67 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and no reflow were randomized to receive either pharmacologic-mediated hyperemia with intracoronary adenosine or nitroprusside (n=30) versus flow-mediated hyperemia (n=37). The angiographic corrected Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction frame count and the minimal microcirculatory resistance, as assessed with intracoronary pressure-thermistor wire, dedicated microcatheter, and thermodilution techniques, were compared after study interventions. Both Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction frame count(40.2 +/- 23.1 versus 39.2 +/- 20.7; P=0.858) and minimal microcirculatory resistance (753.6 +/- 661.5 versus 993.3 +/- 740.8 Wood units; P=0.174) were similar between groups. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 3 flow was observed in 26.7% versus 27.0% (P=0.899). Flow-mediated hyperemia showed 2 different thermodilution patterns during saline infusion indicative of the severity of the no reflow phenomenon. In-hospital death and nonfatal heart failure were observed in 10.4% and 26.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both 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 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.030285
dc.relation
Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023, vol. 12, num. 13
dc.relation
https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.030285
dc.rights
cc by-nc (c) Gómez Lara, Josep et al., 2023
dc.rights
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/es/
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.source
Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))
dc.subject
Insuficiència cardíaca
dc.subject
Circulation of the blood
dc.title
Treatment of Slow‐Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow‐Mediated Hyperemia: The Randomized RAIN‐FLOW Study
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion