Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Saphenous Vein Grafts With and Without Embolic Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Healthcare providers, consumers, researchers and policy makers are inundated with unmanageable amounts of information, including evidence from healthcare research. It has become impossible for all to have the time and resources to find, appraise and interpret this evidence and incorporate it into healthcare decisions. Cochrane Reviews respond to this challenge by identifying, appraising and synthesizing research-based evidence and presenting it in a standardized format, published in The Cochrane Library (www.thecochranelibrary.com).<p><i>The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions</i> contains methodological guidance for the preparation and maintenance of Cochrane intervention reviews. Written in a clear and accessible format, it is the essential manual for all those preparing, maintaining and reading Cochrane reviews. Many of the principles and methods described here are appropriate for systematic reviews applied to other types of research and to systematic reviews of interventions undertaken by others. It is hoped therefore that this book will be invaluable to all those who want to understand the role of systematic reviews, critically appraise published reviews or perform reviews themselves.

Profound reduction in antegrade epicardial coronary flow with concomitant ischemia is seen occasionally during percutaneous coronary intervention despite the absence of evident vessel dissection, obstruction, or distal vessel embolic cutoff. In a prior small series of cases, this "no-reflow" phenomenon appeared to be promptly reversed by the intra-coronary administration of verapamil. To further understand the prevalence of this syndrome and its responsiveness to the proposed therapy, we reviewed 1919 percutaneous interventions performed between January 1991 and April 1993. During the study period, 39 patients (2.0%) met our criteria for no reflow, 37 of whom were treated with intracoronary nitroglycerin followed by intracoronary verapamil and 2 of whom received intracoronary nitroglycerin alone. An additional 16 patients (0.8%) were given verapamil as part of the management of a flow-limiting dissection or distal embolus (mechanical obstruction). Intracoronary verapamil (50 to 900 micrograms, total dose) improved TIMI flow grade in 89% of no-reflow patients and markedly reduced the number of cineframes between contrast injection and opacification of a selected distal landmark (from 91 +/- 56 to 38 +/- 21 frames, P < .001). By contrast, only 19% of patients with epicardial mechanical obstruction showed improvement in TIMI flow grade after verapamil, with minimal reduction in frames to opacification (from 107 +/- 42 to 101 +/- 69, P = .73). The no-reflow phenomenon--reduction in distal flow without apparent dissection or distal embolization--occurs in 2% of coronary interventions. It generally responds promptly to intracoronary verapamil administration, suggesting that distal microvascular spasm may be its etiology.