CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Results From the CABANA Trial Thirty-Day Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study Results MITRA-FR vs. COAPT: Lessons from two trials with diametrically opposed results Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion for Patients in Atrial Fibrillation Suboptimal for Warfarin Therapy: 5-year Results of the PLAATO (Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion) Study Current Status and Future Prospects of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention The management of secondary mitral regurgitation in patients with heart failure: a joint position statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the ESC 2015 ACC/HRS/SCAI Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Device Societal Overview Prospective Evaluation of Transseptal TMVR for Failed Surgical Bioprostheses: MITRAL Trial Valve-in-Valve Arm 1-Year Outcomes
|<<... 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 ...>>|

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.


>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top