ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2024
Coronary no-reflow and adverse events in patients with acute myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention with current drug-eluting stents and third-generation P2Y
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpretable machine learning analysis of immune-inflammatory biomarkers for predicting no-reflow in patients with acute myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- No-Reflow During Coronary Interventions: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Effect of empagliflozin on reducing the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the EMPA-PCI trial.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Reperfusion injury in STEMI: a double-edged sword.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2025Review
- Molecular Mechanisms of Microvascular Obstruction and Dysfunction in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: From Pathophysiology to Therapeutics-A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine injections for no-reflow or slow flow in patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe frequency and prognostic value of coronary no-reflow (CNR) was investigated in studies that have used an outdated reperfusion therapy in terms of stent technology and antithrombotic drugs. We assessed the association of CNR with adverse outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) and newer antithrombotic drugs, ticagrelor or prasugrel.
methodsThis study included 3100 patients with AMI who underwent PCI with current DES and third-generation P2Y
resultsCNR was diagnosed in 130 patients (4.2%). The primary end point occurred in 28 patients in the CNR group and 354 patients in the reflow group (cumulative incidence 23.2% and 12.8%; adjusted hazard ratio = 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.33; P = 0.049). The 1-year incidences of death or myocardial infarction (14.6% vs. 7.6%; P = 0.003), myocardial infarction (8.8% vs. 3.9%; P = 0.007) and major bleeding (10.9% vs. 5.6%; P = 0.008) were significantly higher in patients with CNR than patients with reflow. The risk of adverse events in patients with CNR was highest within the first 30 days after PCI.
conclusionIn patients with AMI undergoing PCI with current DES and third generation P2Y
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.