4.2 Article

Prognostic Association of Circulating Neutrophil Count with No-Reflow in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction following Successful Primary Percutaneous Intervention

期刊

DISEASE MARKERS
卷 2017, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2017/8458492

关键词

-

资金

  1. Beijing NOVA Program [Z171100001117027]
  2. Key Projects in the National Science and Technology Pillar Program during the 12th Five-Year Plan Period [2011BAI11B05]
  3. Beijing Lab for Cardiovascular Precision Medicine [PXM2017_014226_000037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The aim of the present study was to investigate the predictive value of neutrophil count for no-reflow in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent successful primary percutaneous intervention (PCI). Methods. We conducted a retrospective study of 361 patients diagnosed with acute STEMI between 2011 and 2015. All patients underwent successful PCI within 12 h from the onset of symptoms. Angiographic no-reflow was diagnosed based on a post-PCI thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade <= 2 without mechanical obstruction. According to a neutrophil count cut-off determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, patients were divided into two groups: group A (neutrophil count < 9.14 x 10(9)/L) and group B (neutrophil count >= 9.14 x 10(9)/L). Results. Compared to patients in the normal reflow group, patients with no-reflow had higher neutrophil counts (P < 0.05). The incidence rate of no-reflow in group A (18, 9.3%) was significantly lower than that in group B (38). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a neutrophil count >= 9.14 x 10(9)/L was independently predictive for no-reflow (odds ratio = 4.474, 95% confidence interval: 1.610-12.433, P = 0 004) after adjusting for potential confounders. Conclusions. A circulating neutrophil count >= 9.14 x 10(9)/L is independently associated with no-reflow in patients with acute STEMI following primary PCI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据