Introduction: No-reflow is one of the major complications of primary PCI in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. This phenomenon is associated with adverse outcomes in these patients. In the current study, we evaluated the effectiveness of CHA2DS2-VASc score in predicting no-reflow phenomenon. CHA2DS2-VASc score is a risk stratification method to estimate the risk of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods: In total, 396 patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction who had undergone primary PCI were evaluated in our study. Based on post interventional TIMI flow rate results, the patients were divided into two groups: control group (294 patients) and no-reflow group (102 patients). The CHA2DS2-VASc score was calculated for each participant. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the predictive value of this score. Results: Our findings showed that CHA2DS2-VASc score can predict no-reflow independently (odds ratio: 3.06, 95%, confidence interval: 2.23-4.21, P <0 .001). Moreover, lower systolic blood pressure, higher diastolic blood pressure, grade 0 initial TIMI flow rate and smaller stent size were other independent predictors of the no-reflow in our study. We also defined a cut off value of ≥ 2 for the CHA2DS2-VASc score in predicting the no-reflow with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 67%, area under curve: 0.83 with 95% CI (0.79-0.88). Conclusion: The CHA2DS2-VASc score could be used as a simple applicable tool in the prediction of no-reflow before primary PCI in the acute ST elevation myocardial infarction patients.

Aims: This study aimed to determine the success rate and complications occurring after Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) in patients with small saphenous insufficiency who underwent RFA in Rasht. Methods & Materials: Patients with small saphenous vein insufficiency who underwent RFA were explored respecting success rate and potential complications, such as pain, hematoma, neuropathy, Endothermal Heat-Induced Thrombosis (EHIT), and skin burns. The study subjects were assessed 2 weeks after the procedure. Reconanalysis was followed up in the study participants by ultrasound at 2 weeks, 3-6 months, and the first year after RFA. Findings: This study examined 62 patients. A 100% success rate was reported and no case of reflux was observed in the first control ultrasound 2 weeks after RFA. The mean pain score significantly decreased (P<0.001). Besides, in one year, 3 cases of recanalization, 7 cases of EHIT, 9 cases of neuropathy, and 1 case of superficial thrombophlebitis were reported; no case of skin burn was observed. Conclusion: Considering the 100% success rate and slight adverse effects of this method, such as pain and recanalization, RFA is an acceptable approach. Furthermore, the incidence of EHIT should be considered.