TY - JOUR
T1 - Incidence and outcomes of no-reflow phenomenon during percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with acute myocardial infarction
AU - Harrison, Robert W.
AU - Aggarwal, Atul
AU - Ou, Fang Shu
AU - Klein, Lloyd W.
AU - Rumsfeld, John S.
AU - Roe, Matthew T.
AU - Wang, Tracy Y.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (Dallas, Texas) . The views expressed in this report represent those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry or its associated professional societies identified at www.ncdr.com .
Copyright:
Copyright 2013 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2013/1/15
Y1 - 2013/1/15
N2 - Previous studies describing the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were largely confined to single-center studies or small registries. To better characterize the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of the no-reflow phenomenon in a large contemporary population, we analyzed patients with AMI who were undergoing PCI of native coronary artery stenoses in the CathPCI Registry from January 1, 2004 through September 5, 2008 (n = 291,380). The angiographic no-reflow phenomenon was site reported using a standardized definition. No-reflow developed in 2.3% of the patients with AMI (n = 6,553) during PCI. Older age, ST-segment elevation AMI, prolonged interval from symptom onset to admission, and cardiogenic shock were clinical variables independently associated with the development of no-reflow (p <0.001). The angiographic factors independently associated with no-reflow included longer lesion length, higher risk class C lesions, bifurcation lesions, and impaired preprocedure Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow (p <0.001). No-reflow was associated with greater in-hospital mortality (12.6% vs 3.8%, adjusted odds ratio 2.20, 95% confidence interval 1.97 to 2.47, p <0.001) and unsuccessful lesion outcome (29.7% vs 6.6%, adjusted odds ratio 4.70, 95% confidence interval 4.28 to 5.17, p <0.001) compared to patients without no-reflow. In conclusion, the development of no-reflow, although relatively uncommon during PCI for AMI, is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Upfront strategies to reduce the incidence of no-reflow could be considered for high-risk patients to improve outcomes.
AB - Previous studies describing the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were largely confined to single-center studies or small registries. To better characterize the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of the no-reflow phenomenon in a large contemporary population, we analyzed patients with AMI who were undergoing PCI of native coronary artery stenoses in the CathPCI Registry from January 1, 2004 through September 5, 2008 (n = 291,380). The angiographic no-reflow phenomenon was site reported using a standardized definition. No-reflow developed in 2.3% of the patients with AMI (n = 6,553) during PCI. Older age, ST-segment elevation AMI, prolonged interval from symptom onset to admission, and cardiogenic shock were clinical variables independently associated with the development of no-reflow (p <0.001). The angiographic factors independently associated with no-reflow included longer lesion length, higher risk class C lesions, bifurcation lesions, and impaired preprocedure Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow (p <0.001). No-reflow was associated with greater in-hospital mortality (12.6% vs 3.8%, adjusted odds ratio 2.20, 95% confidence interval 1.97 to 2.47, p <0.001) and unsuccessful lesion outcome (29.7% vs 6.6%, adjusted odds ratio 4.70, 95% confidence interval 4.28 to 5.17, p <0.001) compared to patients without no-reflow. In conclusion, the development of no-reflow, although relatively uncommon during PCI for AMI, is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Upfront strategies to reduce the incidence of no-reflow could be considered for high-risk patients to improve outcomes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872028243&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872028243&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.09.015
DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.09.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 23111142
AN - SCOPUS:84872028243
SN - 0002-9149
VL - 111
SP - 178
EP - 184
JO - American Journal of Cardiology
JF - American Journal of Cardiology
IS - 2
ER -