Prediction of no-reflow phenomenon in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
Age Factors
Blood Glucose
/ analysis
Cohort Studies
Collateral Circulation
Coronary Angiography
Coronary Thrombosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Multivariate Analysis
No-Reflow Phenomenon
/ epidemiology
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Predictive Value of Tests
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction
/ epidemiology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Thrombectomy
Journal
Medicine
ISSN: 1536-5964
Titre abrégé: Medicine (Baltimore)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985248R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jun 2020
26 Jun 2020
Historique:
entrez:
27
6
2020
pubmed:
27
6
2020
medline:
8
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
No-reflow is an important complication among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).A retrospective study of 1658 STEMI patients undergoing direct PCI was performed. Patients were randomly assigned at a 7:3 ratio into development cohort and validation cohort and into no-reflow and normal blood flow groups. Clinical data and laboratory examinations were compared to identify independent risk factors and establish a no-reflow risk scoring system.In the development cohort (n = 1122), 331 (29.5%) had no-reflow. Multivariate analysis showed age ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.766, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.313-2.376, P < .001), not using angiotonase inhibitor/angiotensin receptor antagonists (OR = 1.454, 95%CI: 1.084-1.951, P = .013), collateral circulation <grade 2 (OR = 3.056, 95%CI: 1.566-5.961, P = .001), thrombosis burden ≥4 points (OR = 2.033, 95%CI: 1.370-3.018, P < .001), diameter of target lesion ≥3.5 mm (OR = 1.511, 95%CI: 1.087-2.100, P = .014), thrombosis aspiration (OR = 1.422, 95%CI: 1.042-1.941, P = .026), and blood glucose >8 mmol/L (OR = 1.386, 95%CI: 1.007-1.908, P = .045) were related to no-reflow. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve was 0.648 (95%CI: 0.609-0.86). At 0.349 cutoff sensitivity was 42.0%, specificity was 79.3%, positive predictive value (PPV) was 44.7%, negative predictive value (NPV) was 77.4%, P < .001. The resulting risk scoring system was tested in the validation cohort (n = 536), with 30.1% incidence of no-reflow. The area under the ROC curve was 0.637 (95%CI: 0.582-0.692). At a cutoff of 0.349 sensitivity was 53.2% and specificity was 66.7%, PPV was 41.2%, NPV was 76.4%, P < .001.The no-reflow risk scoring system was effective in identifying high-risk patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32590726
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020152
pii: 00005792-202006260-00001
pmc: PMC7329019
doi:
Substances chimiques
Blood Glucose
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e20152Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Oct 3;48(7):1355-60
pubmed: 17010794
Am J Cardiol. 2005 Jul 15;96(2):183-6
pubmed: 16018838
Am J Cardiol. 2013 Jan 15;111(2):178-84
pubmed: 23111142
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Jan 27;53(4):309-15
pubmed: 19161878
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2008 Mar-Apr;50(5):352-82
pubmed: 18313480
Circ J. 2008 May;72(5):716-21
pubmed: 18441449
Kardiol Pol. 2014;72(1):27-33
pubmed: 23990232
Circulation. 2001 May 29;103(21):2550-4
pubmed: 11382722
Res Cardiovasc Med. 2015 May 23;4(2):e25414
pubmed: 26393231
Chest. 2002 Oct;122(4):1322-32
pubmed: 12377860
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Jan 1;41(1):1-7
pubmed: 12570936
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Aug 12;52(7):512-7
pubmed: 18687242
Indian Heart J. 2018 Dec;70 Suppl 3:S406-S418
pubmed: 30595300
Indian Heart J. 2016 Jul-Aug;68(4):539-51
pubmed: 27543480
Cardiovasc Ther. 2013 Jun;31(3):e7-e11
pubmed: 22953997
Am J Cardiol. 2003 Dec 15;92(12):1445-7
pubmed: 14675583
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2014 Dec 30;6:25-31
pubmed: 28785622
Arch Intern Med. 2004 May 10;164(9):982-8
pubmed: 15136307
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Jan 1;202:433-40
pubmed: 26433167
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2010 Oct;103(10):512-21
pubmed: 21130964
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008 Nov 15;72(6):783-9
pubmed: 18798327
N Engl J Med. 1985 Apr 4;312(14):932-6
pubmed: 4038784
Lancet. 2015 Jan 31;385(9966):441-51
pubmed: 24969506
Circulation. 2008 Jun 17;117(24):3152-6
pubmed: 18559715
Can J Cardiol. 2008 Aug;24(8):633-9
pubmed: 18685744
Cardiology. 2013;124(3):153-60
pubmed: 23485798
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Jul 21;54(4):281-92
pubmed: 19608025
Minerva Cardioangiol. 2016 Aug;64(4):367-74
pubmed: 25516137
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2018 Aug;22(15):4987-4994
pubmed: 30070335
Heart. 2002 Feb;87(2):162-8
pubmed: 11796561
Clin Cardiol. 2007 Mar;30(3):130-4
pubmed: 17385720
Circ Res. 2014 Jun 6;114(12):1944-58
pubmed: 24902977
Am J Cardiol. 2009 Nov 1;104(9):1204-9
pubmed: 19840563
Circulation. 2000 Jan 18;101(2):125-30
pubmed: 10637197
Angiology. 2008 Oct-Nov;59(5):587-92
pubmed: 18388082
Chest. 2004 Apr;125(4):1492-9
pubmed: 15078763
Pak J Med Sci. 2015;31(3):576-81
pubmed: 26150847
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Nov 15;84(6):965-72
pubmed: 24402881
World J Emerg Med. 2014;5(2):96-102
pubmed: 25215156
Coron Artery Dis. 2014 Nov;25(7):582-8
pubmed: 25083839
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985 Mar;5(3):587-92
pubmed: 3156171