Effect of High-Dose Intracoronary Adenosine Administration During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background-Coronary microvascular dysfunction is frequently seen in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Previous studies have suggested that the administration of intravenous adenosine resulted in an improvement of myocardial perfusion and a reduction in infarct size. Intracoronary adenosine (bolus of 30 to 60 mu g) is a guideline-recommended therapy to improve myocardial reperfusion. The effect of intracoronary adenosine during primary percutaneous coronary intervention has not been investigated in a large randomized trial. Methods and Results-Patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to 2 bolus injections of intracoronary adenosine (2 x 120 mu g in 20 mL NaCl) or placebo (2 x 20 mL NaCl). The first bolus injection was given after thrombus aspiration and the second after stenting of the infarct-related artery. The primary end point was the incidence of residual ST-segment deviation <0.2 mV, 30 to 60 minutes after percutaneous coronary intervention. Secondary end points were ST-segment elevation resolution, myocardial blush grade, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow on the angiogram after percutaneous coronary intervention, enzymatic infarct size, and clinical outcome at 30 days. A total of 448 patients were randomized to intracoronary adenosine (N = 226) or placebo (N = 222). The incidence of residual ST-segment deviation <0.2 mV did not differ between patients randomized to adenosine or placebo (46.2% versus 52.2%, P = NS). In addition, there were no significant differences in secondary outcome measures. Conclusions-In this randomized placebo controlled trial enrolling 448 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, administration of intracoronary adenosine after thrombus aspiration and after stenting of the infarct-related artery did not result in improved myocardial perfusion. (Circ Cardiovasc Intervent. 2009; 2: 323-329.)