Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23736949›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Adenosine and verapamil for no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in people with acute myocardial infarction.

Kyaw Aung Naing, Lang Li, Qiang Su, Taixiang Wu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The double guidewire approach for transcoronary pacing in a porcine model.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kyaw Aung NaingDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Lang Li
Qiang Su
Taixiang Wu
Guangxi Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of GuangXi Medical University · CNWest China Hospital of Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred treatment for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Although there is restoration of coronary flow after PPCI, impaired myocardial perfusion (known as no-reflow) is frequently observed, and is related to poor clinical outcomes. In order to overcome this phenomenon, drugs have been tried as adjunctive treatments to PPCI. Among them, verapamil and adenosine are two of the most promising drugs. There are no systematic reviews of these two drugs in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing PPCI.

objectivesTo study the impact of adenosine and verapamil on people with AMI who are undergoing PPCI. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following databases in February 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and BIOSIS, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Clinical Trials registers (Clinical Trials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, Australian & New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). We also handsearched the American Journal of Cardiology. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where adenosine or verapamil was the primary intervention. Participants were individuals diagnosed with AMI who were undergoing PPCI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors collected studies and extracted data. Where necessary, we contacted the trial authors to obtain the relevant information. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), P values, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of dichotomous data. MAIN

resultsWe included 10 RCTs involving 939 participants in our review. Nine RCTs were associated with adenosine and one with verapamil. We considered the overall risk of bias of included studies to be moderate. There was no evidence that adenosine reduced short-term all-cause mortality (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.61, P = 0.32), long-term all-cause mortality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.22, P = 0.81), short-term non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 1.38, 95% 0.28 to 6.96, P = 0.69) or the incidence of angiographic no-reflow (TIMI flow grade < 3 after PPCI: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.07, P = 0.11, and myocardial blush grade (MBG) 0 to 1 after PPCI: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22, P=0.75). But the incidence of adverse events with adenosine, such as bradycardia (RR 6.57, 95% CI 2.94 to 14.67, P<0.00001), hypotension (RR 11.43, 95% CI 2.75 to 47.57, P=0.0008) and atrioventricular (AV) block (RR 6.67, 95% CI 1.52 to 29.21, P=0.01) was significantly increased.Meta-analysis of verapamil as treatment for no-reflow during PPCI was not calculated due to lack of data. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found no evidence that adenosine and verapamil as treatments for no-reflow during PPCI can reduce all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or the incidence of angiographic no-reflow (TIMI flow grade < 3 and MBG 0 to1), but there was some evidence of increased adverse events. Further clinical research into adenosine and verapamil is needed because of the limited numbers of included trials and participants.

Indexed as

Percutaneous Coronary InterventionAdenosineCause of DeathHumansMyocardial InfarctionNo-Reflow PhenomenonRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVasodilator AgentsVerapamilAdenosineVasodilator AgentsVerapamil

Identifiers

PMID23736949
OpenAlexW4243551765

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.