No-reflow is an independent predictor of death and myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: No-reflow occurring during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been associated with poor inhospital outcomes. The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate the occurrence of no-reflow as an independent predictor of adverse events and to determine whether treatment with intracoronary vasodilator therapy affected clinical outcomes. METHODS: We prospectively collected data from 4264 consecutive patients undergoing PCI, identifying those with no-reflow, and analyzed their treatments and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: No-reflow was identified in 135 of 4264 patients (3.2%). Baseline demographics were comparable, but patients with no-reflow were more likely to have acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and cardiogenic shock and to have undergone saphenous vein graft interventions. No-reflow was highly predictive of postprocedural myocardial infarction (17.7% vs 3.5% in patients without no-reflow, P <.001) and death (7.4% vs 2.0%, P <.001) and remained a strong independent predictor of death or myocardial infarction after multivariate analysis (odds ratio 3.6, P <.001). The administration of intracoronary verapamil, sodium nitroprusside, or both was not associated with a reduction in the rate of death or myocardial infarction (adjusted odds ratio of death or myocardial infarction 1.04, P =.945 for nitroprusside; and adjusted odds ratio of death or myocardial infarction 0.94, P =.91 for verapamil), despite an improvement in angiographic flow rates for patients treated with sodium nitroprusside. CONCLUSIONS: No-reflow is a strong independent predictor of inhospital mortality and postprocedural myocardial infarction. Administration of verapamil or sodium nitroprusside was not associated with improved inhospital outcomes in patients with no-reflow, although anterograde flow rates were improved in patients treated with sodium nitroprusside.

Comparison of the use of downstream tests after exercise treadmill testing by cardiologists versus noncardiologists.

Although exercise treadmill testing (ETT) is a useful initial test for patients with suspected cardiovascular (CV) disease, there is concern regarding the use of downstream imaging tests especially in the setting of equivocal or positive ETTs. Patients with no history of coronary artery disease who underwent ETT between 2009 and 2010 were prospectively included. Referring physicians were categorized as cardiologists and noncardiologists. Downstream tests included nuclear perfusion imaging, coronary computed tomography angiography, stress echocardiography, stress magnetic resonance, and invasive coronary angiography performed up to 6 months after the ETT. Patients were followed for CV death, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization for a median of 2.7 years. Among 3,656 patients, the ETT were negative in 2,876 (79%), positive in 132 (3.6%), and inconclusive in 643 (18%). Cardiologists ordered less downstream tests than noncardiologists (9.5% vs 12.2%, p=0.02), with less noninvasive tests (5.9% vs 10.4%, p<0.0001) and more invasive angiography (3.6% vs 1.8%, p<0.0001). After adjustment for confounding, patients evaluated by cardiologists were less likely to undergo additional testing after equivocal (odds ratio: 0.65, p=0.02) or positive ETT results (odds ratio: 0.39, p=0.02), whereas after negative ETT, the odds ratio was 1.7 (p=0.06). There was no difference in the rate of adverse CV events between patients referred by cardiologists versus noncardiologists. In conclusion, patients referred for ETT by cardiologists are less likely to undergo additional testing, particularly noninvasive tests, than those referred by noncardiologists. The lower rate of tests is driven by a lower rate of tests after positive or inconclusive ETT.