Resumen

Background: To explore risk factors for no-reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Methods: A total of 733 acute myocardial infarction patients with persistent ischemic chest pain within 12 or 12-24 hours after onset received emergency percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided into a normal reflow group and a no-reflow group, according to TIMI grading and myocardial blush grading after percutaneous coronary intervention. Related risk factors were analyzed. Results: The incidence of no-reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention was 16.1%. Univariate analysis showed that, compared with the normal reflow group, the no-reflow group was older, reperfusion time was significantly longer, preoperative systolic pressure was lower, troponin peak was higher, and creatine kinase enzyme peak was higher (p < 0.05). The proportions of preoperative cardiac function Killip grade ≥ 2 and number of patients using preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump were significantly different (p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age > 65 years (OR: 1.471; 95% CI: 1.462-1.492; p = 0.007), reperfusion time > 6 hours (OR: 1.274; 95% CI: 1.164-1.405; p = 0.001), low systolic pressure at admission (< 100 mmHg) (OR: 1.918; 95% CI: 1.017-3.897; p = 0.004), intra-aortic balloon pump use before percutaneous coronary intervention (OR: 1.949; 95% CI: 1.168-3.253; p = 0.011), low TIMI grade (≤ 1) before percutaneous coronary intervention (OR: 1.100; 95% CI: 1.086-1.257; p < 0.01), high thrombus load (OR: 1.274; 95% CI: 1.423-2.761; p = 0.030), and long target lesion (OR: 1.948; 95% CI: 1.908-1.990; p = 0.019) were independent risk factors. Conclusions: No-reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome was affected by complicated pathological factors.

Palabras clave: Myocardial infarction no-reflow phenomenon percutaneous coronary intervention.

2017-06-19   |   596 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 69 Núm.3. Mayo-Junio 2017 Pags. 139-145 Rev Invest Clin 2017; 69(3)