Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Cochrane Corner: is there a benefit of using intracoronary vasodilators in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction?
  1. Pascal Meier1,3,
  2. Adam Timmis1,2,
  3. Juan-Pablo Casas3,4,
  4. Catherine Otto1
  1. 1Heart Journal, London, UK
  2. 2NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine, London, UK
  3. 3Cochrane Heart Group, London, UK
  4. 4London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Pascal Meier, University College London UCL, 16–18 Westmoreland Street, London W1G 8PH, UK; pascalmeier74{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

This is the first edition of our new section ‘Cochrane Corner’, in which we will discuss important Cochrane Reviews (systematic reviews) of potential interest for the readers of Heart. These reviews are often very extensive and can be difficult to read; we aim to present them in a condensed way and will also discuss the clinical implications of the results. The core information will be presented in a short PICO format (population–intervention–control treatment–outcome).

The outcomes for ST segment elevation myocardial infarctions has improved dramatically with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and an increasing number of hospitals offering this service.1 This has improved call-to-balloon times and outcomes. However, having achieved much faster and efficient reperfusion, we are now confronted with an unresolved issue, reperfusion injury and the no-/slow reflow phenomenon. The no-reflow phenomenon is defined as …

View Full Text


  • Contributors PM drafted the manuscript. JPC revised the manuscript for its intellectual content. AT revised the manuscript for its intellectual content. All authors contributed substantially to this manuscript and have approved its final version.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Editorial
    Adam Timmis Pascal Meier Shah Ebrahim Juan-Pablo Casas Catherine Otto