Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Prediction of no-reflow phenomenon in elective percutaneous coronary intervention for non-acute myocardial infarction.
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile the ‘no-reflow’ phenomenon is a well-recognized complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), its incidence, predictors, and clinical implications in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-AMI remain insufficiently characterized. We investigated the clinical and procedural predictors of the no-reflow in patients undergoing elective PCI for non-AMI.
methodsAmong 10,801 patients in a single-center prospective PCI registry (2013–2024), 3,904 patients with non-AMI who underwent elective PCI were included. No-reflow was defined as transient or persistent thrombolysis in myocardial flow < 3 without proximal obstruction. Independent predictors were identified using multivariable logistic regression with cluster-robust standard errors. Machine learning (ML) models were also developed to assess predictive performance.
resultsNo-reflow was observed in 94 (2.4%) patients. No-reflow was associated with more complex lesions and higher rates of procedural complication rates. Independent predictors of no-reflow included atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR] 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–4.49, p = 0.031), male sex (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.15–3.74, p = 0.015), and a device-to-vessel ratio > 1.1 (OR 14.4, 95% CI 3.71–56.1, p < 0.001), while current or former smoking was inversely associated (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.89, p = 0.017). Although ML models were developed to predict no-reflow, their performance was limited owing to the rarity of events.
conclusionsNo-reflow is an infrequent but clinically relevant complication of elective PCI for patients with non-AMI. Atrial fibrillation, male sex, and stent oversizing were independent predictors, whereas smoking history was inversely associated. These findings underscore the importance of procedural planning and individualized risk assessment in non-AMI PCI.
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.