Because large thrombus is a limitation for revascularization in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the present study evaluated the effectiveness of pulse infusion thrombolysis (PIT) in patients with an AMI with a large (>15 mm) coronary thrombus, focusing on the occurrence of the `no flow' phenomeno...
Because large thrombus is a limitation for revascularization in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the present study evaluated the effectiveness of pulse infusion thrombolysis (PIT) in patients with an AMI with a large (>15 mm) coronary thrombus, focusing on the occurrence of the `no flow' phenomenon. The retrospective study compared patients treated before (1988-95; Group A, n=74) and after (1996-99; Group B, n=40) the use of PIT, using the following parameters: lesion success (<50% stenosis during 30-min observation), procedural success (lesion success plus TIMI grade 3 flow), procedural no flow (TIMI grade 0 flow during the procedure with `back and forth movement' of contrast dye after lesion success), persistent no flow (consistent no flow without any flow improvement at the final visualization despite intensive treatment), reocclusion rate and in-hospital death. Group B was significantly better than Group A in procedural success (90% vs 66%; p=0.005), procedural `no flow' (51% vs 15%; p<0.001), and persistent `no flow' (34% vs 10%; p<0.05). Subgroup comparison was performed among the following groups: Direct-BA group (n=44): treated with mechanical angioplasty alone; ICT-BA group (n=40): treated with prior intracoronary thrombolysis and angioplasty; and PIT-BA group (n=30): treated with PIT and angioplasty. There were no differences in thrombus length and lesion success among these 3 groups. Procedural success was best achieved in PIT-BA: 97% vs 52% for Direct-BA (p=0.003) and 68% for ICT-BA (p=0.009). Procedural `no flow' was least in PIT-BA: 50% vs 3.3% for Direct-BA (p=0.003) and 25% vs 3.3% for ICT-BA (p=0.042). Persistent `no flow' was less frequent in PIT-BA than Direct-BA: 32% vs 3.3% (p=0.009). However, the difference between ICT-BA and Direct-BA was insignificant: 13% vs 3.3% (p=0.53). There were no differences in reocclusion rate and in-hospital death among the 3 subgroups. And there were no differences between Direct-BA and ICT-BA in any parameters. PIT was effective in preventing `no flow' in the mechanical revasculalization for AMI especially those cases with a large thrombus. (Jpn Circ J 2001; 65: 94 - 98)
Because large thrombus is a limitation for revascularization in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the present study evaluated the effectiveness of pulse infusion thrombolysis (PIT) in patients with an AMI with a large (>15 mm) coronary thrombus, focusing on the occurrence of the `no flow' phenomenon. The retrospective study compared patients treated before (1988-95; Group A, n=74) and after (1996-99; Group B, n=40) the use of PIT, using the following parameters: lesion success (<50% stenosis during 30-min observation), procedural success (lesion success plus TIMI grade 3 flow), procedural no flow (TIMI grade 0 flow during the procedure with `back and forth movement' of contrast dye after lesion success), persistent no flow (consistent no flow without any flow improvement at the final visualization despite intensive treatment), reocclusion rate and in-hospital death. Group B was significantly better than Group A in procedural success (90% vs 66%; p=0.005), procedural `no flow' (51% vs 15%; p<0.001), and persistent `no flow' (34% vs 10%; p<0.05). Subgroup comparison was performed among the following groups: Direct-BA group (n=44): treated with mechanical angioplasty alone; ICT-BA group (n=40): treated with prior intracoronary thrombolysis and angioplasty; and PIT-BA group (n=30): treated with PIT and angioplasty. There were no differences in thrombus length and lesion success among these 3 groups. Procedural success was best achieved in PIT-BA: 97% vs 52% for Direct-BA (p=0.003) and 68% for ICT-BA (p=0.009). Procedural `no flow' was least in PIT-BA: 50% vs 3.3% for Direct-BA (p=0.003) and 25% vs 3.3% for ICT-BA (p=0.042). Persistent `no flow' was less frequent in PIT-BA than Direct-BA: 32% vs 3.3% (p=0.009). However, the difference between ICT-BA and Direct-BA was insignificant: 13% vs 3.3% (p=0.53). There were no differences in reocclusion rate and in-hospital death among the 3 subgroups. And there were no differences between Direct-BA and ICT-BA in any parameters. PIT was effective in preventing `no flow' in the mechanical revasculalization for AMI especially those cases with a large thrombus. (Jpn Circ J 2001; 65: 94 - 98)
Sakata, Yasuhiko, Kodama, Kazuhisa, Ishikura, Fuminobu, Komamura, Kazuo, Hasegawa, Shinji, Sakata, Yasushi, Hirayama, Atsushi.
Disappearance of the `No-Reflow' Phenomenon After Adjunctive Intracoronary Administration of Nicorandil in a Patient With Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Japanese circulation journal = 日本循環器學會誌,
vol.61,
no.5,
455-458.
Grines, Cindy L., Browne, Kevin F., Marco, Jean, Rothbaum, Donald, Stone, Gregg W., O'Keefe, James, Overlie, Paul, Donohue, Bryan, Chelliah, Noah, Timmis, Gerald C., Vlietstra, Ronald E., Strzelecki, Michelle, Puchrowicz-Ochocki, Sylvia, O'Neill, William W..
A Comparison of Immediate Angioplasty with Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction.
The New England journal of medicine,
vol.328,
no.10,
673-679.
Laster, S.B., O'Keefe, J.H., Gibbons, R.J..
Incidence and Importance of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Grade 3 Flow After Primary Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial Infarction.
The American journal of cardiology,
vol.78,
no.6,
623-626.
Inhibition of Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa with Eptifibatide in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.
The New England journal of medicine,
vol.339,
no.7,
436-443.
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.