CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

A systematic review of factors predicting door to balloon time in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous intervention Correlation and prognostic role of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and SYNTAX score in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: A six-year experience Pharmacoinvasive and Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (from the Mayo Clinic STEMI Network) Oxygen Therapy in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction Symptom onset-to-balloon time and mortality in the first seven years after STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention Aggressive Measures to Decrease Causes of delay and associated mortality in patients transferred with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction Nonsystem reasons for delay in door-to-balloon time and associated in-hospital mortality: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

Clinical Case Study2017 Dec 26;10(24):2528-2535.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Nonculprit Stenosis Evaluation Using Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Thim T, Götberg M, Fröbert O et al. Keywords: FFR; complete primary revascularization; full revascularization; iFR; primary PCI

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to examine the level of agreement between acute instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) measured across nonculprit stenoses in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and iFR measured at a staged follow-up procedure.


BACKGROUND - Acute full revascularization of nonculprit stenoses in STEMI is debated and currently guided by angiography. Acute functional assessment of nonculprit stenoses may be considered.


METHODS - Immediately after successful primary culprit intervention for STEMI, nonculprit coronary stenoses were evaluated with iFR and left untreated. Follow-up evaluation with iFR was performed at a later stage. iFR <0.90 was considered hemodynamically significant.


RESULTS - One hundred twenty patients with 157 nonculprit lesions were included. Median acute iFR was 0.89 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.82 to 0.94; n = 156), and median follow-up iFR was 0.91 (interquartile range: 0.86 to 0.96; n = 147). Classification agreement was 78% between acute and follow-up iFR. The negative predictive value of acute iFR was 89%. Median time from acute to follow-up evaluation was 16 days (IQR: 5 to 32 days). With follow-up within 5 days after STEMI, no difference was observed between acute and follow-up iFR, and classification agreement was 89%. With follow-up ≥16 days after STEMI, acute iFR was lower than follow-up iFR, and classification agreement was 70%.


CONCLUSIONS - Acute iFR evaluation appeared valid for ruling out significant nonculprit stenoses in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The time interval from acute to follow-up iFR influenced classification agreement, suggesting that inherent physiological disarrangements during STEMI may contribute to classification disagreement.


Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.