BACKGROUND: No-reflow is a frequent complication during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Available data is limited regarding its impact on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing manual thrombus aspiration. Renal impairment is also associated with higher complication rates in STEMI. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the impact of baseline renal dysfunction on the no- reflow phenomenon and the association of no-reflow phenomenon with early clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 94 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent primary stent-based PCI and thrombus aspiration were enrolled. No-reflow was established by the use of angiographic and electrocardiographic reperfusion criteria, respectively. Additionally angiographic and clinical follow-up data were also recorded. RESULTS: In our study, the no-reflow phenomenon was observed in 10 patients (11%) angiographically and in 23 patients (24%) electrocardiographically. Whereas, the the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) [odds ratio (OR) 10.4], hypertension (OR 6.2), previous MI (OR 6.5), previous PCI history, (OR 4.2), predilatation (OR 7.2), final balloon pressure (OR 0.9) were found to be the significant predictors of angiographic no-reflow, only reperfusion time was the predictor of electrocardiographic no-reflow (OR 1.12) at univariate analysis. After adjustment, lower eGFR (OR 14.8) was found to be the independent predictor for angiographic no-reflow. In-hospital mortality was more common in patients with either no-reflow condition separately. CONCLUSIONS: Longer ischemic time and lower initial eGFR values were associated with no-reflow phenomenon. Irrespective of poor reperfusion criteria, no-reflow phenomenon is associated with in-hospital outcome. Future efforts should be made to reduce the incidence of no-reflow especially in patients with lower initial eGFR values. KEY WORDS: Acute myocardial infarction • Glomerular filtration rate • No-reflow phenomenon • Primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
BACKGROUND: No-reflow is a frequent complication during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Available data is limited regarding its impact on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing manual thrombus aspiration. Renal impairment is also associated with higher complication rates in STEMI. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the impact of baseline renal dysfunction on the no- reflow phenomenon and the association of no-reflow phenomenon with early clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 94 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent primary stent-based PCI and thrombus aspiration were enrolled. No-reflow was established by the use of angiographic and electrocardiographic reperfusion criteria, respectively. Additionally angiographic and clinical follow-up data were also recorded. RESULTS: In our study, the no-reflow phenomenon was observed in 10 patients (11%) angiographically and in 23 patients (24%) electrocardiographically. Whereas, the the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) [odds ratio (OR) 10.4], hypertension (OR 6.2), previous MI (OR 6.5), previous PCI history, (OR 4.2), predilatation (OR 7.2), final balloon pressure (OR 0.9) were found to be the significant predictors of angiographic no-reflow, only reperfusion time was the predictor of electrocardiographic no-reflow (OR 1.12) at univariate analysis. After adjustment, lower eGFR (OR 14.8) was found to be the independent predictor for angiographic no-reflow. In-hospital mortality was more common in patients with either no-reflow condition separately. CONCLUSIONS: Longer ischemic time and lower initial eGFR values were associated with no-reflow phenomenon. Irrespective of poor reperfusion criteria, no-reflow phenomenon is associated with in-hospital outcome. Future efforts should be made to reduce the incidence of no-reflow especially in patients with lower initial eGFR values. KEY WORDS: Acute myocardial infarction • Glomerular filtration rate • No-reflow phenomenon • Primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
Authors: Michael Magro; Sjoerd T Nauta; Cihan Simsek; Eric Boersma; Elco van der Heide; Evelyn Regar; Ron T van Domburg; Felix Zijlstra; Patrick W Serruys; Robert Jan van Geuns Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Hugo A Katus; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michal Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Julio J Ferrer-Hita; Alberto Dominguez-Rodriguez; Martín J Garcia-Gonzalez; Pedro Abreu-Gonzalez Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2006-09-25 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Gregg W Stone; John Webb; David A Cox; Bruce R Brodie; Mansoor Qureshi; Anna Kalynych; Mark Turco; Heinz P Schultheiss; Daniel Dulas; Barry D Rutherford; David Antoniucci; Mitchell W Krucoff; Raymond J Gibbons; Denise Jones; Alexandra J Lansky; Roxana Mehran Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert W Harrison; Atul Aggarwal; Fang-shu Ou; Lloyd W Klein; John S Rumsfeld; Matthew T Roe; Tracy Y Wang Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-10-27 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Mahmut Yesin; Metin Çağdaş; Macit Kalçık; Mahmut Uluganyan; Süleyman Çağan Efe; İbrahim Rencüzoğulları; Yavuz Karabağ; Mustafa Ozan Gürsoy; Süleyman Karakoyun Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Muhammed Süleymanoğlu; İbrahim Rencüzoğulları; Yavuz Karabağ; Metin Çağdaş; Mahmut Yesin; Ayça Gümüşdağ; Murat Çap; Murat Gök; İbrahim Yıldız Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 2.357