经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后血流介导充血的慢血流治疗:随机RAIN - Flow研究

J. Gómez-Lara, M. Gracida, F. Rivero, A. Gutiérrez-Barrios, Guillem Muntané-Carol, R. Romaguera, L. Fuentes, Ana Marcano, G. Roura, J. Ferreiro, L. Teruel, S. Brugaletta, F. Alfonso, J. Comín-Colet, J. Gomez-Hospital
{"title":"经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后血流介导充血的慢血流治疗:随机RAIN - Flow研究","authors":"J. Gómez-Lara, M. Gracida, F. Rivero, A. Gutiérrez-Barrios, Guillem Muntané-Carol, R. Romaguera, L. Fuentes, Ana Marcano, G. Roura, J. Ferreiro, L. Teruel, S. Brugaletta, F. Alfonso, J. Comín-Colet, J. Gomez-Hospital","doi":"10.1101/2023.02.21.23286266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) complicated with no reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with adverse outcomes. Although several hyperemic drugs have shown to improve the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow, optimal treatment of no reflow remains unsettled. Saline infusion at 20 ml/min via a dedicated microcatheter causes (flow-mediated) hyperemia. The objective is to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic vs. flow-mediated hyperemia in STEMI patients complicated with no reflow. Methods: STEMI patients with no reflow were randomized to receive either adenosine or nitroprusside vs. flow-mediated hyperemia. The angiographic corrected TIMI Frame Count (cTFC) and the Minimal Microcirculatory Resistance (MMR), as assessed with intracoronary pressure-thermistor wire, dedicated microcatheter and thermodilution techniques, were compared after study interventions. Results: Sixty-seven were included (30 allocated to pharmacologic and 37 to flow-mediated hyperemia). After study interventions, cTFC (40.2{+/-}23.1 vs. 39.2{+/-} 20.7; p=0.858) and MMR (753.6{+/-}661.5 vs. 993.3{+/-}740.8 Wood units; p=0.174) were similar between groups. TIMI 3 flow was observed in 26.7% vs. 27.0% (p=0.899). Flow-mediated hyperemia showed two different thermodilution patterns during saline infusion indicative of the severity of the no reflow phenomenon. In-hospital death and non-fatal heart failure were observed in 10.4% and 26.9%, respectively. Conclusions: Both treatments showed similar (and limited) efficacy restoring coronary flow. Flow-mediated hyperemia with thermodilution pattern assessment allowed the simultaneous characterization of the no reflow degree and response to hyperemia. No reflow was associated with a high rate of adverse outcomes. Further research is warranted to prevent and to treat no reflow in STEMI patients (NCT04685941).","PeriodicalId":17189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment of Slow‐Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow‐Mediated Hyperemia: The Randomized RAIN‐FLOW Study\",\"authors\":\"J. Gómez-Lara, M. Gracida, F. Rivero, A. Gutiérrez-Barrios, Guillem Muntané-Carol, R. Romaguera, L. Fuentes, Ana Marcano, G. Roura, J. Ferreiro, L. Teruel, S. Brugaletta, F. Alfonso, J. Comín-Colet, J. Gomez-Hospital\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2023.02.21.23286266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) complicated with no reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with adverse outcomes. Although several hyperemic drugs have shown to improve the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow, optimal treatment of no reflow remains unsettled. Saline infusion at 20 ml/min via a dedicated microcatheter causes (flow-mediated) hyperemia. The objective is to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic vs. flow-mediated hyperemia in STEMI patients complicated with no reflow. Methods: STEMI patients with no reflow were randomized to receive either adenosine or nitroprusside vs. flow-mediated hyperemia. The angiographic corrected TIMI Frame Count (cTFC) and the Minimal Microcirculatory Resistance (MMR), as assessed with intracoronary pressure-thermistor wire, dedicated microcatheter and thermodilution techniques, were compared after study interventions. Results: Sixty-seven were included (30 allocated to pharmacologic and 37 to flow-mediated hyperemia). After study interventions, cTFC (40.2{+/-}23.1 vs. 39.2{+/-} 20.7; p=0.858) and MMR (753.6{+/-}661.5 vs. 993.3{+/-}740.8 Wood units; p=0.174) were similar between groups. TIMI 3 flow was observed in 26.7% vs. 27.0% (p=0.899). Flow-mediated hyperemia showed two different thermodilution patterns during saline infusion indicative of the severity of the no reflow phenomenon. In-hospital death and non-fatal heart failure were observed in 10.4% and 26.9%, respectively. Conclusions: Both treatments showed similar (and limited) efficacy restoring coronary flow. Flow-mediated hyperemia with thermodilution pattern assessment allowed the simultaneous characterization of the no reflow degree and response to hyperemia. No reflow was associated with a high rate of adverse outcomes. Further research is warranted to prevent and to treat no reflow in STEMI patients (NCT04685941).\",\"PeriodicalId\":17189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.21.23286266\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.21.23286266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)合并无再流与不良结局相关。虽然一些充血药物已被证明可以改善心肌梗死(TIMI)血流,但无血流的最佳治疗方法仍未确定。通过专用微导管以20ml /min的速度输注生理盐水会引起(血流介导的)充血。目的是比较药物治疗与血流介导充血治疗STEMI合并无血流的疗效。方法:没有再流的STEMI患者随机接受腺苷或硝普苷与血流介导的充血。在研究干预后,比较经血管造影校正的TIMI框架计数(cTFC)和最小微循环阻力(MMR),通过冠状动脉内压力热敏电阻丝、专用微导管和热稀释技术进行评估。结果:纳入67例(30例分配给药理学组,37例分配给血流性充血组)。研究干预后,cTFC (40.2{+/-}23.1 vs. 39.2{+/-} 20.7;p = 0.858)和MMR (661.5 vs 993.3 753.6{+ / -}{+ / -} 740.8木单位;P =0.174),组间相似。timi3血流发生率为26.7% vs. 27.0% (p=0.899)。在生理盐水输注期间,血流介导的充血表现出两种不同的热稀释模式,表明无血流现象的严重程度。院内死亡和非致死性心力衰竭发生率分别为10.4%和26.9%。结论:两种治疗方法恢复冠状动脉血流的效果相似(且有限)。血流介导的充血与热调节模式评估可以同时表征无血流程度和充血反应。无血流倒流与高不良预后率相关。需要进一步的研究来预防和治疗STEMI患者的无再流(NCT04685941)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Treatment of Slow‐Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow‐Mediated Hyperemia: The Randomized RAIN‐FLOW Study
Background: ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) complicated with no reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with adverse outcomes. Although several hyperemic drugs have shown to improve the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow, optimal treatment of no reflow remains unsettled. Saline infusion at 20 ml/min via a dedicated microcatheter causes (flow-mediated) hyperemia. The objective is to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic vs. flow-mediated hyperemia in STEMI patients complicated with no reflow. Methods: STEMI patients with no reflow were randomized to receive either adenosine or nitroprusside vs. flow-mediated hyperemia. The angiographic corrected TIMI Frame Count (cTFC) and the Minimal Microcirculatory Resistance (MMR), as assessed with intracoronary pressure-thermistor wire, dedicated microcatheter and thermodilution techniques, were compared after study interventions. Results: Sixty-seven were included (30 allocated to pharmacologic and 37 to flow-mediated hyperemia). After study interventions, cTFC (40.2{+/-}23.1 vs. 39.2{+/-} 20.7; p=0.858) and MMR (753.6{+/-}661.5 vs. 993.3{+/-}740.8 Wood units; p=0.174) were similar between groups. TIMI 3 flow was observed in 26.7% vs. 27.0% (p=0.899). Flow-mediated hyperemia showed two different thermodilution patterns during saline infusion indicative of the severity of the no reflow phenomenon. In-hospital death and non-fatal heart failure were observed in 10.4% and 26.9%, respectively. Conclusions: Both treatments showed similar (and limited) efficacy restoring coronary flow. Flow-mediated hyperemia with thermodilution pattern assessment allowed the simultaneous characterization of the no reflow degree and response to hyperemia. No reflow was associated with a high rate of adverse outcomes. Further research is warranted to prevent and to treat no reflow in STEMI patients (NCT04685941).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Predictors of Survival in Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Active Cancer: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study Treatment of Slow‐Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow‐Mediated Hyperemia: The Randomized RAIN‐FLOW Study Predicting Arterial Thrombotic Events Following Peripheral Revascularization Using Objective Viscoelastic Data Safety of Catheter Ablation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Cardiac Amyloidosis Corin Missense Variants, Blood Pressure, and Hypertension in 11 322 Black Individuals: Insights From REGARDS and the Jackson Heart Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1