CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II trial Relationship Between Infarct Size and Outcomes Following Primary PCI: Patient-Level Analysis From 10 Randomized Trials Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary bifurcation lesions: a review Predicting lifetime risk for developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Chinese population: the China-PAR project Prognostic impact of non-culprit chronic total occlusions in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial Risk of Early Adverse Events After Clopidogrel Discontinuation in Patients Undergoing Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: An Individual Participant Data Analysis Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Non-eligibility for reperfusion therapy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Contemporary insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Intracoronary Optical Coherence Tomography 2018: Current Status and Future Directions Predicting the 10-Year Risks of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Chinese Population: The China-PAR Project (Prediction for ASCVD Risk in China)

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.