ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 3 مورد
نسخه الکترونیک
medimedia.ir

Suboptimal reperfusion after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Suboptimal reperfusion after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction
Literature review current through: Jan 2024.
This topic last updated: Aug 11, 2022.

INTRODUCTION — Coronary artery reperfusion after acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) improves patient outcomes. Reperfusion can be achieved by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or fibrinolysis. Primary PCI is preferred if it can be performed within 90 minutes (from arrival to the emergency department of the primary PCI center) to 120 minutes (from arrival of transferring hospital). (See "Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Selecting a reperfusion strategy".)

Issues related to suboptimal reperfusion after primary PCI (including no reflow) will be reviewed here (see 'No reflow' below). Other issues related to primary PCI are discussed separately. (See "Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: Determinants of outcome" and "Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Periprocedural management" and "Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Selecting a reperfusion strategy".)

DEFINITION — For patients who have undergone primary PCI, suboptimal reperfusion of the distal myocardial bed is defined as a Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade <3 (table 1). This angiographic assessment is made by evaluating the flow of contrast material beyond the site of PCI into the distal vessel.

CAUSES — Suboptimal reperfusion after primary PCI may be caused by either epicardial coronary artery obstruction or no reflow/microvascular dysfunction.

Primary PCI with stent placement leads to a patent coronary artery at the site of proximal obstruction in more than 95 percent of cases. However, epicardial obstruction may be due to:

Persistent stenosis

Persistent thrombus

Intramural hematoma

Side-branch occlusion

Epicardial coronary artery spasm

In the 232 patients (7 percent) with a final Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade ≤2 in the PAMI trials, persistent stenosis >50 percent, thrombus, and dissection were present in 28, 26, and 40 percent, respectively [1]. These complications of PCI are discussed in detail separately. (See "Periprocedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention", section on 'Coronary artery complications'.)

Microvascular dysfunction/no reflow are discussed below. (See 'Mechanisms' below.)

CLINICAL RISK FACTORS — Risk factors for a final Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade ≤2 after PCI include (table 1) [1]:

Age ≥70 years

Diabetes

Longer time to reperfusion

Pre-PCI TIMI flow grade ≤1

Left ventricular ejection fraction <50 percent

Saphenous vein culprit lesion [2]

Large thrombus burden

Left anterior descending coronary artery PCI

Patients who present with heart failure also appear to be more likely to have suboptimal reperfusion after primary PCI. In a report of 1548 patients, there was a significant correlation between Killip class (table 2) and postprocedural TIMI flow grade ≤2 [3]. (See "Risk factors for adverse outcomes after ST-elevation myocardial infarction", section on 'Killip class'.)

A clinical correlate of suboptimal reperfusion is incomplete ST-segment elevation resolution. In a series of 1005 consecutive patients with STEMI who were treated with primary PCI, 42 percent had incomplete ST-segment elevation resolution (defined as ≥1 mm ST-segment elevation after PCI) [4]. Independent predictors of incomplete resolution were anterior MI, Killip class 3 to 4 (table 2), and TIMI flow grade <2 before PCI and <3 (3 represents normal flow) after PCI. Incomplete ST-segment elevation resolution was an independent predictor of mortality and also predicts adverse outcomes in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy. (See "Diagnosis and management of failed fibrinolysis or threatened reocclusion in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction", section on 'Primary failure'.)

NO REFLOW — Some patients do not recover normal myocardial perfusion distal to the site of proximal obstruction despite the absence of epicardial vessel obstruction. This phenomenon is called "no reflow" and is a predictor of worse outcome.

The no-reflow phenomenon is defined as a profound reduction in antegrade coronary blood flow (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] flow grade ≤2 ) despite proximal vessel patency and the absence of dissection, spasm, or distal macroembolus, which is defined as a distal angiographic filling defect with an abrupt "cutoff" in one of the peripheral coronary artery branches of the infarct-related vessel, distal to the site of PCI [5-7]. It is presumed to reflect microvascular dysfunction and appears to be more common in patients with diabetes, as well as the risk factors presented above [8,9] (see 'Clinical risk factors' above). In addition, the likelihood of severe microvascular dysfunction is increased with a longer time from symptom onset to reperfusion [10,11].

Incidence — Attainment of TIMI 3 flow (table 1) is much more common with primary PCI than fibrinolysis. The incidence of no reflow has varied widely and depends in part upon the method used for detection and possibly interobserver variability. Using the criterion of TIMI flow grade ≤2 without macrovascular obstruction, the incidence of no reflow during PCI has ranged from 4 to 7 percent in some studies [1,12] and 12 to 25 percent in others [13,14]. Even higher rates have been noted with other modalities that can assess microvascular flow: 29 percent using the TIMI myocardial perfusion grade [15] and 34 to 39 percent using myocardial contrast echocardiography [10,16]. (See 'Detection' below.)

The likelihood of no reflow correlates with the severity of myocardial damage during the infarct and TIMI flow. Reported predictors of no reflow are Killip class, the number of Q waves, the wall motion score on echocardiogram, and the presence of TIMI flow grade 0 on the initial coronary angiogram [3,17]. (See "Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: Determinants of outcome", section on 'Time from symptom onset'.)

On the other hand, preinfarction angina appears to attenuate the no-reflow phenomenon, suggesting a protective effect from ischemic preconditioning [17]. (See "Myocardial ischemic conditioning: Pathogenesis" and "Myocardial ischemic conditioning: Clinical implications".)

Mechanisms — Multiple factors probably contribute to no reflow, all of which ultimately result in microvascular dysfunction. These include distal embolization of plaque and/or thrombus, myocardial necrosis, reperfusion injury resulting from oxygen free radical production, release of active tissue factor from the dissected plaque, and vasoconstriction secondary to alpha adrenergic tone, thromboxane A2, or serotonin released from platelets [5,16,18-21].

The role of distal embolization was suggested in an intravascular ultrasound study that evaluated total plaque volume before and after primary PCI [22]. Plaque volume decreased after the procedure in all patients, but a significantly greater decrease in plaque volume was seen in patients with inadequate reflow. Plaque volume after PCI also correlated with the corrected TIMI frame count.

Similar findings have been noted in patients with stable angina undergoing PCI. (See "Periprocedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention", section on 'Distal embolization'.)

Detection — In clinical studies using angiographic parameters, no reflow has been defined as a TIMI flow grade (a visual estimate) ≤2 (table 1) in the absence of macrovascular obstruction [13,14]. However, microvascular perfusion may also be reduced in patients with TIMI flow grade 3 and may occur concomitantly with epicardial vessel obstruction.

We rarely use the following methods to assess microvascular perfusion:

TIMI frame count, which is the number of cine-frames required for the contrast material to reach a distal coronary landmark or the TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (or myocardial blush grade) [15,23,24].

A coronary Doppler flow wire can be used to assess no reflow. Doppler flow measurements reveal a characteristic pattern of both systolic retrograde flow and rapid deceleration of diastolic flow in vessels with no reflow [25-27]. In comparison, a residual stenosis is characterized by slow diastolic flow velocity, prolonged diastolic deceleration time, and a smaller diastolic/systolic flow velocity ratio. (See "Clinical use of coronary artery pressure flow measurements".)

Myocardial contrast echocardiography [16,28] and contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance [10,29,30] have been used to detect no reflow. Both have the advantage of also defining the extent of myocardium affected. (See "Clinical utility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging", section on 'Infarct detection and sizing'.)

Prevention — Possible approaches to preventing the no-reflow phenomenon include the use of thrombectomy, distal embolic protection, direct stenting, systemic infusion of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and intracoronary infusion of vasodilating or antithrombotic/thrombolytic agents. Among these, only direct stenting has been shown to improve outcomes.

Direct stenting — We perform direct stenting without predilation of the culprit lesion when possible for multiple reasons. It may reduce or prevent no reflow. The role of direct stenting in STEMI patients is discussed separately. (See "Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Periprocedural management", section on 'Direct stenting'.)

Thrombectomy — For patients undergoing primary PCI, we do not routinely perform manual thrombectomy (eg, thrombus aspiration, aspiration thrombectomy) [31]. However, there may be occasional instances in which clinical and angiographic characteristics make thrombectomy a reasonable choice.

The TOTAL [32], TASTE [33,34], and TAPAS [35,36] trials are the largest and best performed studies of manual thrombectomy in STEMI. These studies randomly assigned patients to routine manual thrombectomy followed by PCI or PCI alone. A 2017 individual patient meta-analysis of these three trials (n = 18,306) found no difference in the rates of cardiovascular death at 30 days (2.4 versus 2.9 percent; hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.01) [37]. Similarly, there was no difference at 30 days in the rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (0.8 versus 0.5 percent; odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 0.98-2.10).

With regard to mechanical (rheolytic) thrombectomy, the results of randomized trials do not show benefit in the aggregate [38-41]. A 2013 meta-analysis included seven trials (n = 1598) comparing mechanical thrombectomy to conventional PCI [36]. There was no significant difference between the two strategies in the incidence of death or major adverse cardiovascular events, but there was a trend toward a higher rate of all strokes with the former (1.3 versus 0.4 percent; risk ratio 2.74, 95% CI 0.93-8.01).

Distal embolic protection devices — We do not use a distal embolic protection device as routine adjunctive therapy to primary PCI with stenting in patients with acute STEMI in the native circulation. Distal embolic protection devices are increasingly used with PCI in saphenous vein grafts due to the substantial potential for embolization of both thrombus and atheromatous material. (See "Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Prevention and management of vein graft stenosis", section on 'Embolic protection devices'.)

The efficacy of a distal embolic protective device in acute STEMI was addressed in the multicenter EMERALD trial of 501 patients who presented within six hours of symptom onset and underwent primary PCI or rescue intervention after failed fibrinolysis in native coronary arteries [42]. The patients were randomly assigned to primary PCI alone or with a distal occlusion balloon and aspiration distal microcirculation system (eg, GuardWire, PercuSurge/Medtronic). Among the patients assigned to distal protection, aspiration was performed in 97 percent, and visible debris was retrieved from 73 percent.

Despite the removal of debris, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of the coprimary endpoints of ST-segment resolution at 30 minutes (63 versus 62 percent) and left ventricular infarct size (12.0 versus 9.5 percent). In addition, the secondary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events at six months was equivalent in the two groups (10 versus 11 percent). The lack of benefit persisted when only the 83 percent of patients undergoing primary PCI (not rescue) were evaluated and was seen in all subsets.

A lack of benefit was also noted in two later randomized trials (PROMISE and DEDICATION), which were of similar design but used a different distal embolic protection device (FilterWire) [43,44].

Potential mechanisms for the lack of benefit in these trials include smaller embolic burden than seen in saphenous vein grafts, embolization caused by crossing the lesion with the embolic protection device, delayed reperfusion due to the occlusive nature of the device, other nonembolic causes of microcirculatory dysfunction, difficulty protecting side branches, difficulty in detecting benefit against the background of established myocardial infarction, and embolization of vasoconstrictor materials not captured by the device [45-47].

Systemic glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors — Among patients undergoing primary PCI for acute STEMI, we do not routinely use systemic GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors for prevention of no reflow. (See "Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Antiplatelet therapy", section on 'Intravenous agents'.)

Intracoronary infusions — Intracoronary infusions of adenosine, verapamil, streptokinase, or abciximab have been evaluated in small studies for their ability to improve myocardial reperfusion, prevent reperfusion injury, and salvage ischemic myocardium at the time of primary PCI. None of these agents is associated with a convincing improvement in outcomes (either myocardial flow or clinical) [48].

A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis of nine small randomized trials of adenosine and one of verapamil found no evidence that either agent reduced short-term, all-cause mortality or nonfatal MI. In addition, there was an increase in the risk of adverse effects such as bradycardia or hypotension with adenosine [49]. This may reflect underpowering to demonstrate a treatment effect rather than a proven lack of efficacy. Moreover, the dihydropyridine calcium blocker nicardipine is used increasingly since bradycardia is avoided.

Treatment — The optimal management strategy for no reflow after the establishment of proximal coronary artery patency with PCI is unknown in part because no therapy has been shown to clearly improve outcomes.

Intracoronary vasodilator therapy has been evaluated; it has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes [14,50-53]. In small series, intracoronary verapamil was used with apparent success in treating no reflow [14,54]. Intracoronary nitroprusside at doses of 50 to 200 mcg has also shown promising results when given alone or with intracoronary adenosine [51-53,55]. In the absence of hypotension or when no reflow persists as a potential contributor to hypotension, we administer intracoronary vasodilators, favoring calcium channel blockers (eg, verapamil, diltiazem, or nicardipine) or nitroprusside. Improved effectiveness may be achieved with administering the vasodilator agents to the distal vessel via a microcatheter or angioplasty balloon.

For patients with hypotension and/or hypoperfusion, intravenous vasopressors, inotropic agents, and ventricular support devices such as intraaortic balloon pump or Impella may be of benefit. (See "Prognosis and treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction", section on 'Summary and Recommendations'.)

Antithrombotic/fibrinolytic therapies — We do not routinely use intracoronary GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors or fibrinolytic drugs for the treatment of impaired microvascular perfusion. While there is no direct evidence of benefit, we believe it is reasonable to administer an intracoronary GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor to patients with evidence of no reflow (or giant thrombus).

Intracoronary GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and streptokinase have been evaluated in randomized trials for their ability to improve microvascular perfusion in patients undergoing primary PCI. (See 'Systemic glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors' above.)

The following are representative trials of intracoronary abciximab from the stent era:

In a trial of 534 patients randomly assigned to either intracoronary or intravenous bolus of abciximab after primary PCI with thrombus aspiration, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complete ST-segment resolution, which was the primary endpoint (64 versus 62 percent, respectively) [56]. However, the secondary endpoints of myocardial blush grade and enzymatic infarct size were better in the intracoronary infusion group.

In a trial of 154 patients randomly assigned to either intravenous or intracoronary bolus of abciximab, both of which were followed by a 12-hour infusion, the primary endpoint of median infarct size at two days, as determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), was significantly reduced in the group treated with intracoronary abciximab (15.1 versus 23.4 percent) [57]. The extent of microvascular obstruction seen on MRI and early ST-segment resolution were also significantly improved. There was also a trend toward fewer major adverse cardiovascular events. (See "Clinical utility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging", section on 'Infarct detection and sizing'.)

A third trial of 50 patients evaluated the efficacy of intracoronary abciximab delivered either through the guiding catheter or a dedicated perfusion catheter at the site of occlusion [58]. Local intracoronary delivery significantly reduced the thrombus score after PCI, as determined by optical coherence tomography (4 versus 34 percent).

Given these limited data, abciximab or other GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors have rarely been used for intracoronary administration for treatment of no reflow. Abciximab is no longer available. The possible efficacy of low-dose intracoronary streptokinase (250,000 units) was compared with no additional therapy in a trial of 41 patients who had undergone successful PCI [59]. The TIMI frame count and multiple measures of microvascular perfusion (eg, coronary flow reserve, index of microvascular resistance, and collateral flow index) were significantly better in the streptokinase group at 48 hours. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in left ventricular size or function at six months.

Vasodilator therapies — Intracoronary vasodilators such as adenosine, nitroprusside, and verapamil are of unproven benefit when given for slow coronary flow in STEMI, and we rarely use them. However, it is possible that the absence of benefit noted in studies is due to small size or suboptimal design. Better clinical outcomes are seen in patients with improvement in coronary flow, and there is general agreement within the interventional community that coronary flow often improves after the infusion of vasodilators such as calcium channel blockers, sodium nitroprusside, and adenosine.

PROGNOSIS — The 4 to 7 percent of patients who do not achieve Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 3 (normal) flow (figure 1A-B) after primary PCI have worse outcomes (table 1) [1,60]. The magnitude of this effect was illustrated in a report from the PAMI trials [1]. The 232 patients who had a final TIMI flow grade ≤2 after PCI (7 percent of all patients) had significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (15 versus 2 percent) and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (20 versus 6 percent) than those with TIMI 3 flow [1]. At one year, significant differences persisted for mortality (23 versus 5 percent), major adverse cardiac events (37 versus 20 percent), and reinfarction (9 versus 4 percent). A similar significant increase in early (30-day) mortality with TIMI flow ≤2 was noted in the GUSTO-IIb trial (11.7 versus 1.5 percent with TIMI 3 flow) [60].

A higher rate of adverse outcomes has been noted in other studies in patients with no reflow, regardless of the method of detection [1,3,13,15,16,24,25,29,30,61,62]. These include increases in in-hospital heart failure and mortality (18 versus 0 percent) [61], left ventricular remodeling at six months [29,30,62], and mortality at one year [3]. In a study of 120 patients, the frequency of cardiac mortality (37 versus 10 percent) and the combined cardiac endpoint of recurrent MI, heart failure, malignant arrhythmia, or cardiac mortality continued to increase over a mean follow-up of almost six years [13].

Both the TIMI myocardial perfusion (TMP) grade and the presence of persistent ST-segment elevation are powerful predictors of prognosis [63,64]. This was illustrated in a review of 253 consecutive high-risk patients who underwent PCI on a native vessel [24]. The following findings were noted:

A TMP grade on the last angiogram after revascularization of 0/1, indicating little or no tissue perfusion, was associated with a marked increase in mortality compared with TMP grades 2 and 3 at both 30 days (26 versus 10 and 4 percent) and one year (35 versus 13 and 9 percent).

The adjusted odds ratio for cumulative mortality was 2.17 for a TMP grade of 0/1 and 3.61 for persistent ST elevation in more than two leads one hour after PCI.

Among patients with a TMP grade of 0/1 or 2, cumulative mortality was much higher in patients who also had persistent ST elevation in more than two leads (47 versus 13 percent). The added value of persistent ST elevation is that it (but not the TMP grade) reflects the size of the area with endangered perfusion.

In contrast, the TIMI frame count, another measure of myocardial tissue perfusion, was not an independent predictor of outcomes.

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)".)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) establishes normal or near-normal antegrade blood flow, as assessed by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3 (table 1), in over 90 percent of cases. Suboptimal reperfusion is said to be present in the 4 to 7 percent of patients who do not achieve normal flow. (See 'Definition' above.)

Among those STEMI patients with TIMI flow grade <3 after PCI, most cases are due to no reflow, usually attributable to distal microvascular dysfunction, rather than proximal epicardial coronary artery obstruction. (See 'Causes' above and 'No reflow' above.)

Direct stenting for the primary lesion is the only strategy that has been shown to reduce the risk of no reflow. However, direct stenting may not be possible in some cases. (See 'Direct stenting' above.)

For most patients undergoing primary PCI, we suggest not routinely performing thrombus aspiration (Grade 2B). It is reasonable to use aspiration thrombectomy in patients with a large thrombus burden. (See 'Thrombectomy' above.)

Distal embolic protection does not appear to protect against no reflow in the native coronary circulation but is effective in saphenous vein grafts. (See 'Prevention' above.)

For patients with TIMI flow grade ≤2 due to persistent stenosis, thrombus, dissection, spasm, or distal macroembolism, treatment is directed at correcting the underlying problem. The optimal management strategy for no reflow after the establishment of proximal coronary artery patency with PCI is unknown. (See 'Treatment' above.)

Patients with hypotension and/or hypoperfusion should be treated with the same approach used in other patients with cardiogenic shock following acute MI. (See "Prognosis and treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction", section on 'Summary and Recommendations'.)

  1. Mehta RH, Harjai KJ, Cox D, et al. Clinical and angiographic correlates and outcomes of suboptimal coronary flow inpatients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:1739.
  2. Brodie BR, VerSteeg DS, Brodie MM, et al. Poor long-term patient and graft survival after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction due to saphenous vein graft occlusion. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005; 65:504.
  3. De Luca G, van 't Hof AW, de Boer MJ, et al. Impaired myocardial perfusion is a major explanation of the poor outcome observed in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and signs of heart failure. Circulation 2004; 109:958.
  4. Brodie BR, Stuckey TD, Hansen C, et al. Relation between electrocardiographic ST-segment resolution and early and late outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95:343.
  5. Rezkalla SH, Kloner RA. Coronary No-reflow Phenomenon. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2005; 7:75.
  6. Eeckhout E, Kern MJ. The coronary no-reflow phenomenon: a review of mechanisms and therapies. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:729.
  7. Henriques JP, Zijlstra F, Ottervanger JP, et al. Incidence and clinical significance of distal embolization during primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2002; 23:1112.
  8. Prasad A, Stone GW, Stuckey TD, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on myocardial perfusion after primary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:508.
  9. Timmer JR, van der Horst IC, de Luca G, et al. Comparison of myocardial perfusion after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95:1375.
  10. Tarantini G, Cacciavillani L, Corbetti F, et al. Duration of ischemia is a major determinant of transmurality and severe microvascular obstruction after primary angioplasty: a study performed with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46:1229.
  11. Kondo M, Nakano A, Saito D, Shimono Y. Assessment of "microvascular no-reflow phenomenon" using technetium-99m macroaggregated albumin scintigraphy in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32:898.
  12. Stone GW, Grines CL, Cox DA, et al. Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:957.
  13. Morishima I, Sone T, Okumura K, et al. Angiographic no-reflow phenomenon as a predictor of adverse long-term outcome in patients treated with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for first acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:1202.
  14. Piana RN, Paik GY, Moscucci M, et al. Incidence and treatment of 'no-reflow' after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 1994; 89:2514.
  15. Dibra A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, et al. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction myocardial perfusion grade in angiography correlates with myocardial salvage in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with stenting or thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:925.
  16. Ito H, Okamura A, Iwakura K, et al. Myocardial perfusion patterns related to thrombolysis in myocardial infarction perfusion grades after coronary angioplasty in patients with acute anterior wall myocardial infarction. Circulation 1996; 93:1993.
  17. Iwakura K, Ito H, Kawano S, et al. Predictive factors for development of the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with reperfused anterior wall acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38:472.
  18. Hearse DJ, Bolli R. Reperfusion induced injury: manifestations, mechanisms, and clinical relevance. Cardiovasc Res 1992; 26:101.
  19. Kloner RA, Rude RE, Carlson N, et al. Ultrastructural evidence of microvascular damage and myocardial cell injury after coronary artery occlusion: which comes first? Circulation 1980; 62:945.
  20. Bonderman D, Teml A, Jakowitsch J, et al. Coronary no-reflow is caused by shedding of active tissue factor from dissected atherosclerotic plaque. Blood 2002; 99:2794.
  21. Gregorini L, Marco J, Kozàkovà M, et al. Alpha-adrenergic blockade improves recovery of myocardial perfusion and function after coronary stenting in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1999; 99:482.
  22. Claessen BE, Maehara A, Fahy M, et al. Plaque composition by intravascular ultrasound and distal embolization after percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2012; 5:S111.
  23. Gibson CM, Cannon CP, Murphy SA, et al. Relationship of the TIMI myocardial perfusion grades, flow grades, frame count, and percutaneous coronary intervention to long-term outcomes after thrombolytic administration in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2002; 105:1909.
  24. Haager PK, Christott P, Heussen N, et al. Prediction of clinical outcome after mechanical revascularization in acute myocardial infarction by markers of myocardial reperfusion. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:532.
  25. Kawamoto T, Yoshida K, Akasaka T, et al. Can coronary blood flow velocity pattern after primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty [correction of angiography] predict recovery of regional left ventricular function in patients with acute myocardial infarction? Circulation 1999; 100:339.
  26. Iwakura K, Ito H, Takiuchi S, et al. Alternation in the coronary blood flow velocity pattern in patients with no reflow and reperfused acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1996; 94:1269.
  27. Furber AP, Prunier F, Nguyen HC, et al. Coronary blood flow assessment after successful angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction predicts the risk of long-term cardiac events. Circulation 2004; 110:3527.
  28. Lepper W, Hoffmann R, Kamp O, et al. Assessment of myocardial reperfusion by intravenous myocardial contrast echocardiography and coronary flow reserve after primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty [correction of angiography] in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2000; 101:2368.
  29. Taylor AJ, Al-Saadi N, Abdel-Aty H, et al. Detection of acutely impaired microvascular reperfusion after infarct angioplasty with magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation 2004; 109:2080.
  30. Baks T, van Geuns RJ, Biagini E, et al. Effects of primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction on early and late infarct size and left ventricular wall characteristics. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:40.
  31. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67:1235.
  32. Jolly SS, Cairns JA, Yusuf S, et al. Randomized trial of primary PCI with or without routine manual thrombectomy. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:1389.
  33. Fröbert O, Lagerqvist B, Olivecrona GK, et al. Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1587.
  34. Lagerqvist B, Fröbert O, Olivecrona GK, et al. Outcomes 1 year after thrombus aspiration for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:1111.
  35. Svilaas T, Vlaar PJ, van der Horst IC, et al. Thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:557.
  36. Kumbhani DJ, Bavry AA, Desai MY, et al. Role of aspiration and mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62:1409.
  37. Jolly SS, James S, Džavík V, et al. Thrombus Aspiration in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Individual Patient Meta-Analysis: Thrombectomy Trialists Collaboration. Circulation 2017; 135:143.
  38. Burzotta F, De Vita M, Gu YL, et al. Clinical impact of thrombectomy in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an individual patient-data pooled analysis of 11 trials. Eur Heart J 2009; 30:2193.
  39. Ali A, Cox D, Dib N, et al. Rheolytic thrombectomy with percutaneous coronary intervention for infarct size reduction in acute myocardial infarction: 30-day results from a multicenter randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48:244.
  40. Migliorini A, Stabile A, Rodriguez AE, et al. Comparison of AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy before direct infarct artery stenting with direct stenting alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The JETSTENT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:1298.
  41. Kastrati A, Byrne RA, Schömig A. Is it time to jettison complex mechanical thrombectomy in favor of simple manual aspiration devices? J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:1307.
  42. Stone GW, Webb J, Cox DA, et al. Distal microcirculatory protection during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005; 293:1063.
  43. Gick M, Jander N, Bestehorn HP, et al. Randomized evaluation of the effects of filter-based distal protection on myocardial perfusion and infarct size after primary percutaneous catheter intervention in myocardial infarction with and without ST-segment elevation. Circulation 2005; 112:1462.
  44. Kelbaek H, Terkelsen CJ, Helqvist S, et al. Randomized comparison of distal protection versus conventional treatment in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the drug elution and distal protection in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (DEDICATION) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51:899.
  45. Schömig A, Kastrati A. Distal embolic protection in patients with acute myocardial infarction: attractive concept but no evidence of benefit. JAMA 2005; 293:1116.
  46. Gorog DA, Foale RA, Malik I. Distal myocardial protection during percutaneous coronary intervention: when and where? J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46:1434.
  47. Limbruno U, De Caterina R. EMERALD, AIMI, and PROMISE: is there still a potential for embolic protection in primary PCI? Eur Heart J 2006; 27:1139.
  48. Stone GW, Maehara A, Witzenbichler B, et al. Intracoronary abciximab and aspiration thrombectomy in patients with large anterior myocardial infarction: the INFUSE-AMI randomized trial. JAMA 2012; 307:1817.
  49. Aung Naing K, Li L, Su Q, Wu T. Adenosine and verapamil for no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in people with acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; :CD009503.
  50. Lee CH, Wong HB, Tan HC, et al. Impact of reversibility of no reflow phenomenon on 30-day mortality following percutaneous revascularization for acute myocardial infarction-insights from a 1,328 patient registry. J Interv Cardiol 2005; 18:261.
  51. Hillegass WB, Dean NA, Liao L, et al. Treatment of no-reflow and impaired flow with the nitric oxide donor nitroprusside following percutaneous coronary interventions: initial human clinical experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37:1335.
  52. Wang HJ, Lo PH, Lin JJ, et al. Treatment of slow/no-reflow phenomenon with intracoronary nitroprusside injection in primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 63:171.
  53. Barcin C, Denktas AE, Lennon RJ, et al. Comparison of combination therapy of adenosine and nitroprusside with adenosine alone in the treatment of angiographic no-reflow phenomenon. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 61:484.
  54. Werner GS, Lang K, Kuehnert H, Figulla HR. Intracoronary verapamil for reversal of no-reflow during coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2002; 57:444.
  55. Marzilli M, Orsini E, Marraccini P, Testa R. Beneficial effects of intracoronary adenosine as an adjunct to primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2000; 101:2154.
  56. Gu YL, Kampinga MA, Wieringa WG, et al. Intracoronary versus intravenous administration of abciximab in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration: the comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration during emergency reperfusion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (CICERO) trial. Circulation 2010; 122:2709.
  57. Thiele H, Schindler K, Friedenberger J, et al. Intracoronary compared with intravenous bolus abciximab application in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the randomized Leipzig immediate percutaneous coronary intervention abciximab IV versus IC in ST-elevation myocardial infarction trial. Circulation 2008; 118:49.
  58. Prati F, Capodanno D, Pawlowski T, et al. Local delivery versus intracoronary infusion of abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndromes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3:928.
  59. Sezer M, Oflaz H, Gören T, et al. Intracoronary streptokinase after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1823.
  60. Berger PB, Ellis SG, Holmes DR Jr, et al. Relationship between delay in performing direct coronary angioplasty and early clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the global use of strategies to open occluded arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO-IIb) trial. Circulation 1999; 100:14.
  61. Yamamuro A, Akasaka T, Tamita K, et al. Coronary flow velocity pattern immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention as a predictor of complications and in-hospital survival after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2002; 106:3051.
  62. Bolognese L, Carrabba N, Parodi G, et al. Impact of microvascular dysfunction on left ventricular remodeling and long-term clinical outcome after primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2004; 109:1121.
  63. Gibson CM, Cannon CP, Murphy SA, et al. Relationship of TIMI myocardial perfusion grade to mortality after administration of thrombolytic drugs. Circulation 2000; 101:125.
  64. Stone GW, Peterson MA, Lansky AJ, et al. Impact of normalized myocardial perfusion after successful angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39:591.
Topic 81 Version 34.0

References

آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟