ABSTRACT
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.