Predictors of no-reflow phenomenon following percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

No-Reflow Prediction in Acute Coronary Syndrome During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The NORPACS Risk Score

BACKGROUND

Suboptimal coronary reperfusion (no reflow) is common in acute coronary syndrome percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to develop and externally validate a clinical risk score for angiographic no reflow for use following angiography and before PCI.

METHODS

We developed and externally validated a logistic regression model for prediction of no reflow among adult patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndrome using data from the Melbourne Interventional Group PCI registry (2005-2020; development cohort) and the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society PCI registry (2006-2020; external validation cohort).

RESULTS

A total of 30 561 patients (mean age, 64.1 years; 24% women) were included in the Melbourne Interventional Group development cohort and 440 256 patients (mean age, 64.9 years; 27% women) in the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society external validation cohort. The primary outcome (no reflow) occurred in 4.1% (1249 patients) and 9.4% (41 222 patients) of the development and validation cohorts, respectively. From 33 candidate predictor variables, 6 final variables were selected by an adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model for inclusion (cardiogenic shock, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with symptom onset >195 minutes pre-PCI, estimated stent length ≥20 mm, vessel diameter <2.5 mm, pre-PCI Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow <3, and lesion location). Model discrimination was very good (development C statistic, 0.808; validation C statistic, 0.741) with excellent calibration. Patients with a score of ≥8 points had a 22% and 27% risk of no reflow in the development and validation cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The no-reflow prediction in acute coronary syndrome risk score is a simple count-based scoring system based on 6 parameters available before PCI to predict the risk of no reflow. This score could be useful in guiding preventative treatment and future trials.

The role and mechanisms of microvascular damage in the ischemic myocardium

Following myocardial ischemic injury, the most effective clinical intervention is timely restoration of blood perfusion to ischemic but viable myocardium to reduce irreversible myocardial necrosis, limit infarct size, and prevent cardiac insufficiency. However, reperfusion itself may exacerbate cell death and myocardial injury, a process commonly referred to as ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury, which primarily involves cardiomyocytes and cardiac microvascular endothelial cells (CMECs) and is characterized by myocardial stunning, microvascular damage (MVD), reperfusion arrhythmia, and lethal reperfusion injury. MVD caused by I/R has been a neglected problem compared to myocardial injury. Clinically, the incidence of microvascular angina and/or no-reflow due to ineffective coronary perfusion accounts for 5-50% in patients after acute revascularization. MVD limiting drug diffusion into injured myocardium, is strongly associated with the development of heart failure. CMECs account for > 60% of the cardiac cellular components, and their role in myocardial I/R injury cannot be ignored. There are many studies on microvascular obstruction, but few studies on microvascular leakage, which may be mainly due to the lack of corresponding detection methods. In this review, we summarize the clinical manifestations, related mechanisms of MVD during myocardial I/R, laboratory and clinical examination means, as well as the research progress on potential therapies for MVD in recent years. Better understanding the characteristics and risk factors of MVD in patients after hemodynamic reconstruction is of great significance for managing MVD, preventing heart failure and improving patient prognosis.

Coronary No-Reflow after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Current Knowledge on Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Clinical Impact and Therapy

Coronary no-reflow (CNR) is a frequent phenomenon that develops in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) following reperfusion therapy. CNR is highly dynamic, develops gradually (over hours) and persists for days to weeks after reperfusion. Microvascular obstruction (MVO) developing as a consequence of myocardial ischemia, distal embolization and reperfusion-related injury is the main pathophysiological mechanism of CNR. The frequency of CNR or MVO after primary PCI differs widely depending on the sensitivity of the tools used for diagnosis and timing of examination. Coronary angiography is readily available and most convenient to diagnose CNR but it is highly conservative and underestimates the true frequency of CNR. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is the most sensitive method to diagnose MVO and CNR that provides information on the presence, localization and extent of MVO. CMR imaging detects intramyocardial hemorrhage and accurately estimates the infarct size. MVO and CNR markedly negate the benefits of reperfusion therapy and contribute to poor clinical outcomes including adverse remodeling of left ventricle, worsening or new congestive heart failure and reduced survival. Despite extensive research and the use of therapies that target almost all known pathophysiological mechanisms of CNR, no therapy has been found that prevents or reverses CNR and provides consistent clinical benefit in patients with STEMI undergoing reperfusion. Currently, the prevention or alleviation of MVO and CNR remain unmet goals in the therapy of STEMI that continue to be under intense research.

The Systemic Immune Inflammatory Index Predicts No-Reflow Phenomenon after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Older Patients with STEMI

Purpose: Coronary no-reflow phenomenon (NRP), a common adverse complication in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), is associated with poor patient prognosis. In this study, the correlation between the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and NRP in older patients with STEMI was studied, to provide a basis for early identification of high-risk patients and improve their prognosis.

Materials and methods: Between January 2017 and June 2020, 578 older patients with acute STEMI admitted to the Department of Cardiology of Hebei General Hospital for direct PCI treatment were selected for this retrospective study. Patients were divided into an NRP group and normal-flow group according to whether NRP occurred during the operation. Clinical data and the examination indexes of the two groups were collected. Logistic regression was used to analyze the independent predictors of NRP, and the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to further analyze the ability of SII to predict NRP in older patients with STEMI.

Results: Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that hypertension (OR=2.048, 95% CI:1.252–3.352, P=0.004), lymphocyte count (OR=0.571, 95% CI:0.368–0.885, P=0.012), platelet count (OR=1.009, 95% CI:1.005–1.013, P<0.001), hemoglobin (OR=1.015, 95% CI:1.003–1.028, P=0.018), multivessel disease (OR=2.237, 95% CI:1.407–3.558, P=0.001), and SII≥1814 (OR=3.799, 95% CI:2.190–6.593, P<0.001) were independent predictors of NRP after primary PCI in older patients with STEMI. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that SII had a high predictive value for NRP (AUC=0.738; 95% CI:0.686–0.790), with the best cut-off value of 1814, a sensitivity of 52.85% and a specificity of 85.71%.

Conclusion: For older patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, SII is a valid predictor of NRP.

Comparison of angiographic results and clinical outcomes of no-reflow after stenting in left anterior descending (LAD) versus non-LAD culprit STEMI

Objectives:

No-reflow is a complication that frequently occurs after stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. In this study, we focused on angiographic results and clinical outcomes after no-reflow in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery versus non–left anterior descending artery ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Methods:

In this prospective study, a total of 201 patients who had developed no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention were enrolled. The patients were divided into left anterior descending artery culprit and non-left anterior descending artery culprit groups. The primary endpoints were final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow, corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count and final myocardial blush grade. Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events in-hospital and at 1 month.

Results:

Out of the 201 patients, 60.19% had culprit left anterior descending artery. Pulse rate, baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure, single-vessel disease, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, baseline thrombolysis in myocardial infarction I flow and final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction II flow (24.8% vs 11.3%, p = .017), and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (28.17 ± 11.86 vs 24.38 ± 9.05, p = .016) were significantly higher in the left anterior descending artery group. In contrast, baseline Killip Class I, three-vessel disease, baseline thrombolysis in myocardial infarction II flow, final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction III flow (74.4% vs 87.5%, p = .024) and left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were significantly greater in the non–left anterior descending artery group. However, for both in-hospital and at 30 days, overall major adverse cardiovascular event was similar in the two groups. The demographics, clinical and medication profiles and the routes used to treat no-reflow were all comparable in both groups.

Conclusions:

No-reflow in left anterior descending artery ST-elevation myocardial infarction is associated with lower final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction III flow, higher thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count and relatively lower Grade III myocardial blush than non-left anterior descending artery ST-elevation myocardial infarction with subsequent lower left ventricular ejection fraction and a higher frequency of in-hospital heart failure and hospitalisation due to heart failure.