ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Intracoronary Vasoactive Therapy for No-Reflow During Primary PCI: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distal Versus Proximal Intracoronary Drug Delivery for the Treatment of the No-Reflow Phenomenon During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Reply: No-Reflow During Primary PCI: Pharmacology Over Delivery.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Drug Delivery Bias in No-Reflow.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Case Report: A case of successful treatment of STEMI following intra-coronary thrombolysis and re-transplantation in a heart transplant recipient.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Intracoronary thrombus in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Practical management strategies for the interventional cardiologist.Indian heart journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe no-reflow phenomenon frequently complicates primary percutaneous coronary intervention and is associated with adverse outcomes. Evidence supporting a specific pharmacological treatment is limited.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare commonly used intracoronary medications for the treatment of the no-reflow phenomenon.
methodsWe performed a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing intracoronary adenosine, epinephrine, nitroprusside, and verapamil administered during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of the no-reflow phenomenon (PROSPERO CRD420251102877). The primary efficacy endpoint was restoration of TIMI flow grade 3 flow at the end of the procedure. Secondary endpoints included ST-segment resolution, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality.
resultsThirteen studies, for a total of 1,674 patients, were included in the analysis. Both epinephrine (OR: 2.81; 95% CI: 1.72-4.58) and verapamil (OR: 2.84; 95% CI: 1.63-4.95) were associated with significantly higher odds of achieving final TIMI flow grade 3 compared with control (τ
conclusionsIn this network meta-analysis, intracoronary verapamil and epinephrine were associated with improvements in final TIMI flow grade 3 compared with control. Further studies are needed to clarify optimal agent selection.
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.