CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying the Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with unstable angina and complex coronary artery true bifurcation lesions Two-Year Outcomes and Predictors of Target Lesion Revascularization for Non-Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Following Two-Stent Strategy With 2nd-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents Nonproportional Hazards for Time-to-Event Outcomes in Clinical Trials: JACC Review Topic of the Week Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients after PCI Vascular response and healing profile of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for percutaneous treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions: A one-year optical coherence tomography analysis from the GHOST-CTO registry Impact of Statins on Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring Timing and Causes of Unplanned Readmissions After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Nationwide Readmission Database Comparative Accuracy of Focused Cardiac Ultrasonography and Clinical Examination for Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Valvular Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Rare Genetic Variants Associated With Sudden Cardiac Death in Adults

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.