CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Meta-analysis of outcomes after intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in 26,503 patients enrolled in three randomized trials and 14 observational studies Safety of six-month dual antiplatelet therapy after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation: OPTIMA-C Randomised Clinical Trial and OCT Substudy 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in the Young Impact of Myocardial Scar on Prognostic Implication of Secondary Mitral Regurgitation in Heart Failure A pragmatic approach to the use of inotropes for the management of acute and advanced heart failure: An expert panel consensus 中国心力衰竭诊断和治疗指南2018 Effects of Dapagliflozin on Symptoms, Function and Quality of Life in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results from the DAPA-HF Trial SGLT-2 Inhibitors and Cardiovascular Risk: An Analysis of CVD-REAL Mechanical complications of everolimus-eluting stents associated with adverse events: an intravascular ultrasound 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.