Risk assessment of slow or no-reflow phenomenon in aortocoronary vein graft percutaneous intervention.

Slow or no-reflow phenomenon (SNR) complicates 10%-15% of cases of percutaneous intervention (PCI) in aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts (SVG). At present, there are no uniform, effective strategies to predict or prevent this common and potentially serious complication. The purpose of our study was to characterize variables correlated with the risk of SNR in SVG PCI in the era of stenting and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors. We identified 2,898 consecutive patients who had PCI, of whom 163 underwent PCI of at least one SVG. The clinical and angiographic characteristics of patients who developed SNR (SNR group) were compared with those who did not (no-SNR group). A total of 23 patients experienced SNR and 140 did not. Using a stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis, four independent predictors for SNR were detected: probable thrombus (OR 6.9; 95% CI, 2.1-23.9; P = 0.001), acute coronary syndromes (OR 6.4; 95% CI, 2.0-25.3; P = 0.003), degenerated vein graft (OR 5.2; 95% CI, 1.7-16.6; P = 0.003), and ulcer (OR 3.4; 95% CI, 0.99-11.6; P = 0.04). The risk of developing SNR could be estimated according to the number of predictors found: low-grade risk (1%-10%) if < or = one variable was present, moderate risk (20%-40%) if two variables were present, and high risk (60%-90%) if three or more variables were present. We identified and quantified current risk factors for SNR and concluded that the risk of developing SNR during PCI in SVG can be predicted by simple clinical and angiographic variables obtained before PCI. This information may be useful when the risk of PCI has to be balanced against alternative strategies such as medical therapy or redo-bypass surgery or in the selection of those patients that will most benefit from the use of protection devices during PCI.

Adenosine use during aortocoronary vein graft interventions reverses but does not prevent the slow-no reflow phenomenon.

Slow or no reflow (SNR) complicates 10-15% of cases of percutaneous intervention (PI) in saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG). To date there have been limited options for the prevention and treatment of this common and potentially serious complication. We evaluated the procedural outcome of 143 consecutive SVG interventions. We compared patients who received pre-intervention intra-graft adenosine boluses with those who did not. In addition we examined the efficacy of adenosine boluses to reverse slow-no reflow events. Angiograms were reviewed and flow graded (TIMI grade) by film readers blinded to the use of any intraprocedural drug or clinical history. Seventy patients received intragraft adenosine boluses before percutaneous intervention (APPI), 73 received no preintervention adenosine (NoAPPI). There were no significant angiographic differences between the two groups at baseline. A total of 20 patients experienced SNR. The incidence of SNR was similar in the two groups (APPI = 14.2% vs. NoAPPI = 13.6%, P = 0.9). SNR was treated with repeated, rapid boluses (24 microg each) of intra-graft adenosine. Reversal of SNR was observed in 10 of 11 patients (91%) who received high doses of adenosine (>/=5 boluses, mean 7.7 +/- 2.6) and in 3 of 9 (33%) of those who received low doses (<5 boluses, mean 1.5 +/- 1.2). Final TIMI flow was significantly better in the high dose than in the low dose group (final TIMI 2.7 +/- 0.6 vs. 2 +/- 0.8, P = 0.04). No significant untoward complications were observed during adenosine infusion. These findings suggest that SNR after PI in SVG is not prevented by pre-intervention adenosine, but it can be safely and effectively reversed by delivery of multiple, rapid and repeated boluses of 24 microg of intra-graft adenosine.

Intracoronary adenosine administered during rotational atherectomy of complex lesions in native coronary arteries reduces the incidence of no-reflow phenomenon.

Rotational atherectomy (RA) of complex, calcified lesions has been associated with a high incidence of no reflow ranging from 6%-15% and concomitant myocardial necrosis with adverse prognostic implications. There are no uniform strategies for preventing this complication. The role of intracoronary adenosine for the prevention of this phenomenon during RA has not been fully evaluated. We studied the procedural outcome of 122 patients who underwent RA of complex native coronary artery lesions. Fifty-two patients received no adenosine but a variety of other agents. Seventy patients received intracoronary adenosine boluses (24 to 48 microgram prior to and after each RA run). There was no difference in the type of lesion studied, run time, or Burr to artery ratio (0.6-0.7) between the two groups. Six patients without adenosine experienced no reflow (11.6%), with resultant infarction in the target artery territory, while only 1 of 70 patients (1.4%, P - 0.023) in the adenosine group experienced no reflow. No untoward complications were observed during adenosine infusion. Intracoronary adenosine bolus administered during rotational atherectomy is easy, safe, and may significantly reduce the incidence of no reflow, which may improve the 30-day outcome of this procedure.