ArticleMedicine2020
Prediction of no-reflow phenomenon in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predicting the no-reflow phenomenon in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review of clinical prediction models.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular diseasePooled it
- Clinical and Angiographic Predictors of No-Reflow and Its Impact on Outcomes in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Retrospective Study.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Predictors of Impaired Reperfusion in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated with Primary PCI: Preliminary Results from COMA.NET Project.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of no-reflow phenomenon in patients with ST-segment- elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI vs. pharmaco-invasive strategy: a single-centre study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Changes and Diagnostic Significance of miR-542-3p Expression in Patients with Myocardial Infarction.Molecular biotechnology · 2025Article
- Molecular Mechanisms of Microvascular Obstruction and Dysfunction in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: From Pathophysiology to Therapeutics-A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The Impact of Disease Duration on Microcirculatory Dysfunction in Young Patients with Uncomplicated Type 1 Diabetes.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Impact of body mass index on long-term outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention stratified by diabetes mellitus: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Review
- Analysis of risk factors for PCI no-reflow in coronary heart disease and construction of related prediction models.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- The role and mechanisms of microvascular damage in the ischemic myocardium.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2023Review
- Utility of electrocardiogram to predict the occurrence of the no-reflow phenomenon in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Predilation Ballooning in High Thrombus Laden STEMIs: An Independent Predictor of Slow Flow/No-Reflow in Patients Undergoing Emergent Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2023Article
- A Narrative Review of the Classical and Modern Diagnostic Methods of the No-Reflow Phenomenon.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- CHA2DS2 VASc score and brachial artery flow-mediated dilation as predictors for no-reflow phenomenon in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Prognostic Value of Myocardial Blush Grade in ST-elevation MI: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2022Review
- Aspiration Thrombectomy in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction-5-Year Analysis Based on a Large National Registry (ORPKI).Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- The assessment of no-reflow phenomenon incidence in early versus delayed percutaneous coronary intervention following a primary fibrinolysis.ARYA atherosclerosisArticle
- Intracoronary epinephrine versus adenosine in the management of refractory no-reflow phenomenon: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
No-reflow is an important complication among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).A retrospective study of 1658 STEMI patients undergoing direct PCI was performed. Patients were randomly assigned at a 7:3 ratio into development cohort and validation cohort and into no-reflow and normal blood flow groups. Clinical data and laboratory examinations were compared to identify independent risk factors and establish a no-reflow risk scoring system.In the development cohort (n = 1122), 331 (29.5%) had no-reflow. Multivariate analysis showed age ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.766, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.313-2.376, P < .001), not using angiotonase inhibitor/angiotensin receptor antagonists (OR = 1.454, 95%CI: 1.084-1.951, P = .013), collateral circulation <grade 2 (OR = 3.056, 95%CI: 1.566-5.961, P = .001), thrombosis burden ≥4 points (OR = 2.033, 95%CI: 1.370-3.018, P < .001), diameter of target lesion ≥3.5 mm (OR = 1.511, 95%CI: 1.087-2.100, P = .014), thrombosis aspiration (OR = 1.422, 95%CI: 1.042-1.941, P = .026), and blood glucose >8 mmol/L (OR = 1.386, 95%CI: 1.007-1.908, P = .045) were related to no-reflow. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve was 0.648 (95%CI: 0.609-0.86). At 0.349 cutoff sensitivity was 42.0%, specificity was 79.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) was 44.7%, negative predictive value (NPV) was 77.4%, P < .001. The resulting risk scoring system was tested in the validation cohort (n = 536), with 30.1% incidence of no-reflow. The area under the ROC curve was 0.637 (95%CI: 0.582-0.692). At a cutoff of 0.349 sensitivity was 53.2% and specificity was 66.7%, PPV was 41.2%, NPV was 76.4%, P < .001.The no-reflow risk scoring system was effective in identifying high-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.