CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following TAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Reduced Leaflet Motion after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement 1-Year Outcomes After Edge-to-Edge Valve Repair for Symptomatic Tricuspid Regurgitation: Results From the TriValve Registry Comparison of plaque characteristics in narrowings with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI/unstable angina pectoris and stable coronary artery disease (from the ADAPT-DES IVUS Substudy) Reduced Apolipoprotein M and Adverse Outcomes Across the Spectrum of Human Heart Failure Role of intravascular ultrasound in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Clinical impact of conduction disturbances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Usefulness of intravascular ultrasound to predict outcomes in short-length lesions treated with drug-eluting stents High-Risk Coronary Plaque Regression After Intensive Lifestyle Intervention in Nonbstructive Coronary Disease: A Randomized Study Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Prophylaxis in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: 2.3-Year Follow-up of the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) Trial

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.