CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Expansion or contraction of stenting in coronary artery disease? Impact of bifurcation technique on 2-year clinical outcomes in 773 patients with distal unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents Anticoagulation After Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance vs. Angiographic Guidance in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction - Long-Term Clinical Outcomes From the CREDO-Kyoto AMI Registry 5-Year Outcomes Comparing Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Differential prognostic effect of intravascular ultrasound use according to implanted stent length Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients Intravascular ultrasound predictors of angiographic restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation Clinical Outcome After DK Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: The 3-Year Follow-Up Results of the DKCRUSH-III Study

Original Research2008 Aug;4(2):181-3.

JOURNAL:EuroIntervention. Article Link

Management of two major complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the no-reflow phenomenon and coronary perforations

Muller O, Windecker S, Cuisset T et al. Keywords: complication; no-reflow phenomenon; coronary perforation

ABSTRACT


The no-reflow phenomenon has been defined in 2001 by Eeckhout and Kern as inadequate myocardial perfusion through a given segment of the coronary circulation without angiographic evidence of mechanical vessel obstruction1. Rates of cardiac death and non-fatal cardiac events are increased in patients with compared to those without no-reflow2,3. The term “no reflow” encompasses the slow-flow, slow-reflow, no-flow and low-flow phenomenon. Its incidence depends on the clinical setting, ranging from as low as 2% in elective native coronary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) to 20% in saphenous venous graft (SVG) PCI and up to 26% in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) mechanical reperfusion4-6. Depending on the clinical setting, the mechanism of the no-reflow phenomenon differs. Distal embolisation and ischaemic-reperfusion cell injury prevail in patients with AMI, microvascular spasm and embolisation of aggregated platelets occur in native coronary PCI, whereas embolisation of degenerated plaque elements, including thrombotic and atherosclerotic debris are encountered during SVG PCI7. The no-reflow phenomenon is classified according to its pathophysiology with potential implications for its treatment in the categories provided in Table 1.