Objectives We aimed to compare intracoronary (IC) epinephrine versus conventional treatments alone in patients with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction and refractory coronary no‐reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods Thirty consecutive patients with severe refractory coronary no‐reflow (TIMI 0–1, MBG 0–1) during PPCI were prospectively included after initial failure of conventional treatments. Conventional treatments used in both groups included IC nitrates, thrombectomy. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and adenosine. Patients received IC epinephrine or no epinephrine. Results Intracoronary administration of epinephrine yielded significantly better coronary flow patterns (28.6% TIMI 3, 64.3% TIMI 2, 7.1% TIMI 1, and 0% TIMI 0), compared to those after treatment with conventional agents alone (18.8% TIMI 3, 12.5% TIMI 2, 37.5% TIMI 1, and 31.3% TIMI 0) (p value between groups = .004). In the IC epinephrine vs. no epinephrine group there was a significant reduction of 30‐day composite of death or heart failure (35.7% vs. 81.25%), improvement of ejection fraction (p = .01) and ST‐segment resolution (p = .01). Conclusions The findings of this proof‐of‐concept study suggest that as compared to use of conventional agents alone, IC epinephrine provides substantial improvement of coronary flow in STEMI patients with refractory no‐reflow during PPCI that may result into improved prognosis.

AOL stenting can be performed with high success and low complication rates. At follow-up, no significant differences in event rates were found between DES and BMS; EuroSCORE>10% was the only predictor of MACCE.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Recently, the COMPASS trial demonstrated that dual therapy reduced cardiovascular outcomes compared with aspirin alone in patients with stable atherosclerotic disease. Methods and Results We sought to assess the proportion of patients eligible for the COMPASS trial and to compare the epidemiology and outcome of these patients with those without COMPASS inclusion or with any exclusion criteria in a contemporary, nationwide cohort of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Among the 4068 patients with detailed information allowing evaluation of eligibility, 1416 (34.8%) did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (COMPASS-Not-Included), 841 (20.7%) had exclusion criteria (COMPASS-Excluded) and the remaining 1811 (44.5%) were classified as COMPASS-Like. At 1 year, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke, was 0.9% in the COMPASS-Not-Included and 2.0% in the COMPASS-Like (p = 0.01), and 5.0% in the COMPASS-Excluded group (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Among the COMPASS-Like population, patients with multiple COMPASS enrichment criteria presented a significant increase in the risk of MACE (from 1.0% to 3.3% in those with 1 and ≥3 criteria, respectively; p = 0.012), and a modest absolute increase in major bleeding risk (from 0.2% to 0.4%, respectively; p = 0.46). Conclusions In a contemporary real-world cohort registry of stable CAD, most patients resulted as eligible for the COMPASS. These patients presented a considerable annual risk of MACE that consistently increases in the presence of multiple risk factors.

No abstract

DES utilization shows their safety and efficacy in off-label patients with complex clinical and angiographic profile in terms of long-term incidence of MACCE. MultiDES implantation is associated with a higher risk of long-term TLR. No difference between DES type was found.

No abstract