4.5 Article

REstoration of COronary flow in patients with no-reflow after primary coronary interVEntion of acute myocaRdial infarction (RECOVER)

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 164, Issue 3, Pages 394-401

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.06.015

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background No randomized trial has been conducted to compare different vasodilators for treating no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. Methods The prospective, randomized, 2-center trial was designed to compare the effect of 3 different vasodilators on coronary no-reflow. A total of 102 patients with no-reflow in primary PCI were randomized to receive intracoronary infusion of diltiazem, verapamil, or nitroglycerin (n = 34 in each group) through selective microcatheter. The primary end point was coronary flow improvement in corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (CTFC) after administration of the drug. Results Compared with that of the nitroglycerin group, there was a significant improvement of CTFC after drug infusion in the diltiazem and verapamil groups (42.4 frames vs 28.1 and 28.4 frames, P < .001). The improvement in CTFC was similar between the diltiazem and verapamil groups (P = .9). Compared with the nitroglycerin group, the diltiazem and verapamil groups had more complete ST-segment resolution at 3 hours after PCI, lower peak troponin T level, and lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels at 1 and 30 days after PCI. After drug infusion, the drop of heart rate and systolic blood pressure in the verapamil group was greater than that in the diltiazem and nitroglycerin groups. Conclusion Intracoronary infusion of diltiazem or verapamil can reverse no-reflow more effectively than nitroglycerin during primary PCI for acute myocardial infarction. The efficacy of diltiazem and verapamil is similar, and diltiazem seems safer. (Am Heart J 2012;164:394-401.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available