Evidence mapPaperPMID 25985145Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

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

Qiang Su, Tun Swe Nyi, Lang Li

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Coronary Slow Flow and No-Reflow During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Contemporary Insights Into Imaging-Guided Prediction, Prevention, and Management.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Complementary Pharmacotherapy for STEMI Undergoing Primary PCI: An Evidence-Based Clinical Approach.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2022
    Review
  13. Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Coronary No-Reflow Phenomenon.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Coronary No-Reflow Phenomenon.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qiang SuDepartment of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6, Shuang Yong Load, Nanning, Guangxi, China, 530021.
Tun Swe Nyi
Lang Li
Guangxi Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of GuangXi Medical 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 coronary flow is restored after PPCI, impaired myocardial perfusion (known as no-reflow) related to poor clinical outcomes is frequently observed. To overcome this phenomenon, drugs, such as atorvastatin, abciximab and others, have been tried as adjunctive treatment to PPCI. Among these drugs, verapamil and adenosine are among the most promising. No other systematic reviews have examined use of these two drugs in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing PPCI. This is an update of the version previously published (2013, Issue 6), for which the people of interest in the review were those treated with PPCI - not those given fibrinolytic therapy.

objectivesTo study the impact of adenosine and verapamil on no-reflow during PPCI in people with AMI. SEARCH

methodsWe updated searches of the following databases in June 2014 without language restriction: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and BIOSIS, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). We also handsearched The American Journal of Cardiology. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which 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. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to obtain relevant information. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), P values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of dichotomous data. MAIN

resultsWe included in our review 11 RCTs (one new study with 59 participants) involving 1027 participants. Ten RCTs were associated with adenosine and one with verapamil. We considered the overall risk of bias of included studies to be moderate. We found no evidence that adenosine reduced short-term all-cause mortality (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.48, P value = 0.27), long-term all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.74, P value = 0.70), short-term non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 1.32, 95% 0.33 to 5.29, P value = 0.69) or myocardial blush grade (MBG) 0 to 1 after PPCI (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22, P value = 0.75). The incidence of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade < 3 after PPCI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.91, P value = 0.01) was decreased. Conversely, adverse events with adenosine, such as bradycardia (RR 6.32, 95% CI 2.98 to 13.41, P value < 0.00001), hypotension (RR 11.43, 95% CI 2.75 to 47.57, P value = 0.0008) and atrioventricular (AV) block (RR 6.78, 95% CI 2.15 to 21.38, P value = 0.001), were significantly increased.Meta-analysis of verapamil as treatment for no-reflow during PPCI was not performed because data were insufficient. AUTHORS'

conclusionsIt is difficult to draw conclusions because of the insufficient quality and quantity of current research studies. We considered the overall risk of bias of included studies to be moderate. Adenosine as treatment for no-reflow during PPCI could reduce angiographic no-reflow (TIMI flow grade < 3) but was found to increase adverse events. What's more, no evidence could be found to suggest that adenosine reduced all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or the incidence of myocardial blush grade 0 to 1. Additionally, the efficacy of verapamil for no-reflow during PPCI could not be analysed because data were insufficient. Further clinical research into adenosine and verapamil is needed because of the limited numbers of available trials and participants.

Indexed as

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

Identifiers

PMID25985145
PMCPMC7388181
OpenAlexW1946647604

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.