4.7 Review

Myocardial No-Reflow in Humans

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 281-292

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.03.054

Keywords

microcirculation; myocardial no-reflow; primary percutaneous coronary intervention; ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a variable proportion of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, ranging from 5% to 50%, primary percutaneous coronary intervention achieves epicardial coronary artery reperfusion but not myocardial reperfusion, a condition known as no-reflow. Of note, no-reflow is associated with a worse prognosis at follow-up. The phenomenon has a multifactorial pathogenesis including: distal embolization, ischemia-reperfusion injury, and individual predisposition of coronary microcirculation to injury. Moreover, it is spontaneously reversible in some patients, thus suggesting that it might be amenable to treatment also when we fail to prevent it. Several recent studies have shown that biomarkers and other easily available clinical parameters can predict the risk of no-reflow and can help in the assessment of the multiple mechanisms of the phenomenon. Several therapeutic strategies have been tested for the prevention and treatment of no-reflow. In particular, thrombus aspiration before stent implantation prevents distal embolization and has been recently shown to improve myocardial perfusion and clinical outcome as compared with the standard procedure. However, it is conceivable that the relevance of each pathogenetic component of no-reflow is different in different patients, thus explaining the occurrence of no-reflow despite the use of mechanical thrombus aspiration. Thus, in this review article, for the first time, we propose a personalized management of no-reflow on the basis of the assessment of the prevailing mechanisms of no-reflow operating in each patient. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 281-92) (C) 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available