Incidence and Outcomes of No-Reflow Phenomenon During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Robert W. Harrison ; MD^a ; ^{robert.w.harrison@duke.edu} ; Atul Aggarwal ; MD^b ; Fang-shu Ou ; MS^a ; Lloyd W. Klein ; MD^c ; John S. Rumsfeld ; MD ; PhD^d ; Matthew T. Roe ; MD ; MHS^a ; Tracy Y. Wang ; MD ; MHS^a ; American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry
• 刊名：The American Journal of Cardiology
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：15 January, 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：111
• 期：2
• 页码：178-184
• 全文大小：151 K

文摘

Previous studies describing the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were largely confined to single-center studies or small registries. To better characterize the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of the no-reflow phenomenon in a large contemporary population, we analyzed patients with AMI who were undergoing PCI of native coronary artery stenoses in the CathPCI Registry from January 1, 2004 through September 5, 2008 (n?= 291,380). The angiographic no-reflow phenomenon was site reported using a standardized definition. No-reflow developed in 2.3 % of the patients with AMI (n?= 6,553) during PCI. Older age, ST-segment elevation AMI, prolonged interval from symptom onset to admission, and cardiogenic shock were clinical variables independently associated with the development of no-reflow (p <0.001). The angiographic factors independently associated with no-reflow included longer lesion length, higher risk class C lesions, bifurcation lesions, and impaired preprocedure Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow (p <0.001). No-reflow was associated with greater in-hospital mortality (12.6 % vs 3.8 % , adjusted odds ratio 2.20, 95 % confidence interval 1.97 to 2.47, p <0.001) and unsuccessful lesion outcome (29.7 % vs 6.6 % , adjusted odds ratio 4.70, 95 % confidence interval 4.28 to 5.17, p <0.001) compared to patients without no-reflow. In conclusion, the development of no-reflow, although relatively uncommon during PCI for AMI, is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Upfront strategies to reduce the incidence of no-reflow could be considered for high-risk patients to improve outcomes.