CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Long-Term Outcomes of Different Two-Stent Techniques With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Bifurcation Disease: Insights From the FAILS-2 Study Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance in routine percutaneous coronary intervention for conventional lesions: data from the EXCELLENT trial Global Approach to High Bleeding Risk Patients With Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents: The LF II Study Stent underexpansion and residual reference segment stenosis are related to stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: an intravascular ultrasound study Impact of SYNTAX Score on 10-Year Outcomes After Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Intravascular ultrasound-guided unprotected left main coronary artery stenting in the elderly A risk score to predict postdischarge bleeding among acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: BRIC-ACS study When, where, and how to target vascular inflammation in the post-CANTOS era? Efficacy and safety of low-dose colchicine in patients with coronary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials 2019 Guidelines on Diabetes, Pre-Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines

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.