ArticleClinical cardiology2026
Clinical and Angiographic Predictors of No-Reflow and Its Impact on Outcomes in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify clinical and angiographic predictors of the no-reflow phenomenon and evaluate its impact on short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
methodsThis retrospective study included 2925 patients who underwent primary PCI for STEMI between January 2020 and July 2025. Patients were stratified into no-reflow and normal flow groups based on final TIMI flow. Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural data were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression identified independent predictors of no-reflow.
resultsThe no-reflow phenomenon occurred in 526 patients (18%). Independent predictors included older age, diabetes mellitus, Killip class ≥ II, high thrombus burden, pre-PCI TIMI 0 flow, and longer symptom-to-door time. Use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors was protective. No-reflow patients had higher in-hospital mortality (17.3% vs. 4.5%), lower LVEF, and increased 1-year MACE (40.5% vs. 16.4%). Kaplan-Meier curves confirmed significantly reduced MACE-free survival (log-rank p < 0.001).
conclusionThe no-reflow phenomenon is associated with adverse outcomes and can be predicted using routine clinical and angiographic features. Early identification may enable targeted preventive strategies.
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.