Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32719072›Full record

ArticleOpen heart2020

No-reflow phenomenon and comparison to the normal-flow population postprimary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction: case-control study (NORM PPCI).

Jennifer Ann Rossington, Eirini Sol, Konstantina Masoura, Konstantinos Aznaouridis, Raj Chelliah, Michael Cunnington, Benjamin Davison, Joseph John, Richard Oliver, Angela Hoye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open heart, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The role and mechanisms of microvascular damage in the ischemic myocardium.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jennifer Ann RossingtonDepartment of Cardiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, Leeds, UK jar@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9946-6369
Eirini Sol1st Department of Cardiology, Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Konstantina MasouraDepartment of Cardiology, Laiko General Hospital, Athens, Attica, Greece.
Konstantinos Aznaouridis1st Department of Cardiology, Athens Medical School, Hippokration Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Raj ChelliahCardiology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, UK.
Michael CunningtonDepartment of Cardiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Benjamin DavisonCardiology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, UK.
Joseph JohnCardiology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, UK.
Richard OliverCardiology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, UK.
Angela HoyeDepartment of Academic Cardiology, Hull York Medical School Centre for Cardiovascular and Metabolic Research, Cottingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNo-reflow (NR) phenomenon is characterised by the failure of myocardial reperfusion despite the absence of mechanical coronary obstruction. NR negatively affects patient outcomes, emphasising the importance of prediction and management. The objective was to evaluate the incidence and independent predictors of NR in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

methodsThis was a single-centre prospective case-control study. Cases were subjects who suffered NR, and the control comparators were those who did not. Clinical outcomes were documented. Salient variables relating to the patients and their presentation, history and angiographical findings were compared using one-way analysis of variance or χ

resultsOf 173 consecutive patients, 24 (13.9%) suffered from NR, with 46% occurring post stent implantation. Patients with NR had increased risk of in-hospital death (OR 7.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 36.7, p=0.022). From baseline variables available prior to percutaneous coronary intervention, the independent predictors of NR were increased lesion complexity, admission systolic hypertension, weight of <78 kg and history of hypertension. Continuous data were transformed into best-fit binary variables, and a risk score was defined. Significant difference was demonstrated between the risk score of patients with NR (4.1±1) compared with controls (2.6±1) (p<0.001), and the risk score was considered a good test (area under the curve=0.823). A score of ≥4 had 75% sensitivity and 76.5% specificity.

conclusionPatients with NR have a higher rate of mortality following STEMI. Predictors of NR include lesion complexity, systolic hypertension and low weight. Further validation of this risk model is required.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNo-Reflow PhenomenonPercutaneous Coronary InterventionProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsST Elevation Myocardial Infarctionacute coronary syndromecoronary intervention (PCI)interventional cardiology

Identifiers

PMID32719072
PMCPMC7380712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.