ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparison of no-reflow phenomenon in patients with ST-segment- elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI vs. pharmaco-invasive strategy: a single-centre study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The no-reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) represents a major barrier to successful reperfusion, leading to adverse outcomes despite epicardial vessel patency. Comparative evidence regarding its incidence and clinical consequences between primary PCI and pharmaco-invasive PCI remains scarce. Aim: The study aimed to compare the incidence of the no-reflow phenomenon in patients undergoing pharmaco-invasive PCI versus primary PCI, and to evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of patients with no-reflow at three months post-procedure. Methods: In this prospective, single centre, observational study, STEMI patients presenting within 24 h of symptom onset were enrolled at a tertiary care centre. Patients experiencing no-reflow were categorized into Group A (primary PCI; Results: Among 857 patients undergoing primary PCI and 2,976 undergoing pharmaco-invasive PCI, the incidence of no-reflow was significantly higher in the primary PCI group (10.7% vs. 6.5%). Patients in Group A were older (58.9 ± 13.6 vs. 54.4 ± 11.4 years; Conclusion: No-reflow was more frequent after primary PCI, particularly in older, diabetic, and late-presenting patients with baseline TIMI 0 flow. Both reperfusion strategies achieved comparable short-term clinical outcomes in no-reflow patients. Pharmaco-invasive PCI may mitigate the risk of no-reflow in selected STEMI patients while maintaining equivalent early prognosis.
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.