您的位置:山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报(医学版)》

山东大学学报 (医学版) ›› 2019, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (11): 9-15.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1671-7554.0.2019.358

• 临床医学 • 上一篇    下一篇

182例急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者术后30 d冠脉慢血流/无复流危险因素分析

张伟,赵红艳,杜凤立,苏国英   

  1. 山东大学附属济南市中心医院心血管内科, 山东 济南 250013
  • 发布日期:2022-09-27
  • 通讯作者: 赵红艳. E-mail: wei.229@163.com

Risk factors of slow or no coronary flow in 182 patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction 30 days after operation

ZHANG Wei, ZHAO Hongyan, DU Fengli, SU Guoying   

  1. Department of Cardiology, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan 250013, Shandong, China
  • Published:2022-09-27

摘要: 目的 研究急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)术后冠状动脉慢血流/无复流(SCF/NCF)现象发生的危险因素,探讨术后30 d SCF/NCF对患者的影响。 方法 回顾性分析STEMI并行急诊PCI的患者334例,分为SCF/NCF组(n=182)及对照组(术后冠状动脉血流速度正常患者,n=152)。应用多因素二元Logistic回归分析研究STEMI患者急诊PCI术后与SCF/NCF现象发生有关联的危险因素,并于术后30 d内对所有患者进行随访,分析两组主要心脏不良事件(MACE)、再发心肌梗死、心源性死亡、全因死亡、支架内血栓的发生情况。 结果 (1)两组患者间差异存在统计学意义的因素包括:血肌酐值升高(P=0.034,OR=1.009,95%CI:1.001~1.017),预扩后高TIMI帧数(P=0.025,OR=1.038,95%CI:1.005~1.072),高支架最大释放压(P=0.006,OR=1.525,95%CI:1.130~2.060),高血栓积分(P=0.030,OR=1.324,95%CI:1.028~1.705)是SCF/NCF发生的危险因素;靶血管为非RCA(P<0.001,OR=0.071,95%CI:0.025~0.200),高预扩囊最大扩张压(P=0.033,OR=0.864,95%CI:0.755~0.989),术中应用硝普钠(P=0.006,OR=0.126,95%CI:0.029~0.548)及IIb/IIIa受体拮抗剂(P=0.043,OR=0.438,95%CI:0.197~0.974)是SCF/NCF发生的保护性因素;其中靶血管为非RCA及术中应用硝普钠为减低SCF/NCF现象发生的主要保护性因素。(2)术后30 d内随访表明,两组患者MACE(14例 vs 8例, χ2=0.753,P=0.385)、心源性死亡(12例 vs 8例,χ2=0.243,P=0.622)、全因死亡(12例 vs 8例, χ2=0.243,P=0.622)、支架内血栓(2例 vs 0例, χ2=1.675,P=0.196)的发生情况无统计学意义;而SCF/NCF组再发心肌梗死的发生率高于对照组(6例 vs 0例, χ2=5.087,P=0.024)。(3)导致两组患者死亡的原因包括心源性休克、支架内血栓、心脏破裂、急性心力衰竭,其中心源性休克是导致STEMI患者死亡的首位原因(占比70%)。 结论 血肌酐值升高、预扩后高TIMI帧数、高支架最大释放压、高血栓积分与SCF/NCF的发生有统计学意义的正向关联,靶血管为非RCA、高预扩球囊最大扩张压、术中使用硝普钠以及IIb/IIIa受体拮抗剂与SCF/NCF的发生有统计学意义的负向关联。随访发现SCF/NCF组再发心肌梗死的发生率高于对照组。

关键词: 急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死, 急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗, 冠状动脉慢血流, 冠状动脉无复流, 危险因素, 随访

Abstract: Objective To study the risk factors of slow coronary flow/ no coronary flow(SCF/NCF)after the emergency percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)in the patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction 山 东 大 学 学 报 (医 学 版)57卷11期 -张伟,等.182例急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者术后30 d冠脉慢血流/无复流危险因素分析 \=-(STEMI), and to explore the influences of SCF/NCF on the patients 30 days after the emergency PCI. Methods A total of 334 patients with STEMI and emergency PCI were analyzed retrospectively. They were divided into the SCF/NCF group(n=182)and control group(the patients with normal coronary flow after PCI,n=152). The multivariate Logistic regression analysis was used to study the risk factors correlated with SCF/NCF after emergency PCI. The follow-up was made to explore the incidence of major adverse cardiac events(MACE), myocardial re-infarction, cardiac death, all-cause death and instent thrombosis between the two groups 30 days after PCI. Results (1) The factors with statistical differences between the two groups showed that the elevation of serum creatinine(P=0.034, OR=1.009, 95%CI: 1.001-1.017), high TIMI frame counts after pre-dilation(P=0.025, OR=1.038, 95%CI: 1.005-1.072), the high maximum stent release pressure(P=0.006, OR=1.525, 95%CI: 1.130-2.060), the high thrombus score(P=0.030, OR=1.324, 95%CI: 1.028-1.705)were the risk factors of SCF/NCF phenomenon. Non-right coronary artery as the target vessel(P<0.001, OR=0.071, 95%CI: 0.025-0.200), the high maximum pre-dilation pressure(P=0.033, OR=0.864, 95%CI: 0.755-0.989), the usage of sodium nitroprusside(P=0.006, OR=0.126, 95%CI: 0.029-0.548)and IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist(P=0.043, OR=0.438, 95%CI: 0.197-0.974)during the procedure were the protection factors of the SCF/NCF phenomenon. Among these protection factors, non-right coronary artery as the target vessel and the usage of sodium nitroprusside were dominant. (2) After 30 days of the follow-up, there were no significant differences in the incidence of MACE(14 vs 8 cases, χ2=0.753, P=0.385), cardiac death(12 vs 8 cases, χ2=0.243, P=0.622), all-cause death(12 vs 8 cases, χ2=0.243,P=0.622)and in-stent thrombosis(2 vs 0 cases, χ2=1.675, P=0.196)between the two groups. Compared with the control group, the incidence of myocardial re-infarction in SCF/NCF group was higher(6 vs 0 cases, χ2=5.087, P=0.024). (3) The causes of death were cardiac shock, in-stent thrombosis, cardiac rupture and acute heart failure. Cardiac shock is the first cause of death which accounts for 70%. Conclusion The elevation of serum creatinine, high TIMI frame count after pre-dilation, the high maximum stent release pressure and the high thrombus score are positivly correlated to the SCF/NCF phenomenon. Non-right coronary artery as the target vessel, the high maximum pre-dilation pressure, the usage of sodium nitroprusside and IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist during the procedure are negativly correlated to the SCF/NCF phenomenon. The incidence of myocardial re-infarction in the SCF/NCF group was higher than that in the control group.

Key words: Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention, Slow coronary flow, No coronary flow, Risk factors, Follow-up

中图分类号: 

  • R543.3
[1] Pedersen F, Butrymovich V, Kelbaek H, et al. Short- and long-term cause of death in patients treated with primary PCI for STEMI[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2014, 64(20): 2101-2108.
[2] Fokkema ML, James SK, Albertsson P, et al. Population trends in percutaneous coronary intervention: 20-year results from the SCAAR(Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry)[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013, 61(12): 1222-1230.
[3] 叶绍东,吴永健,李琳,等.75岁以上ST段抬高心肌梗死患者再灌注治疗进展[J].中华老年心脑血管病杂志, 2015, 17(4): 436-437.
[4] Gibson CM, Cannon CP, Daley WL, et al. TIMI frame count: a quantitative method of assessing coronary artery flow[J]. Circulation, 1996, 93(5): 879-888.
[5] 顾崇怀,邓宇阳,杨晓旭,等.血栓抽吸的应用现状及进展[J].中国介入心脏病学杂志,2014, 22(7):462-464.
[6] Salinas P, Jimenez-Valero S, Moreno R, et al. Update in pharmacological management of coronary no-reflow phenomenon[J]. Cardiovasc Hematol Agents Med Chem, 2012, 10(3): 256-264.
[7] 韩雅玲,邓捷,荆全民,等.急性心肌梗死急诊介入治疗无再流发生的独立预测因素及对长期预后的影响[J].中华心血管病杂志,2006, 34(6): 483-486. HAN Yaling, DNEG Jie, JING Quanmin, et al. Post primary percutaneous coronary intervention no-reflow in patients with acute myocardial infarction: contributing factors and long-term prognostic impact[J]. Chin J Cardiol, 2006, 34(6): 483-486.
[8] Gupta S, Gupta MM. No reflow phenomenon in percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarc-tion[J]. Indian Heart J, 2016, 68(4): 539-551.
[9] 戴敬,吕树铮,宋现涛,等.介入术后无复流现象的研究进展[J].心肺血管病杂志, 2014, 33(1): 133-135.
[10] 赵林,张宇晨,郭成军,等.入院肾小球滤过率对ST段抬高心肌梗死患者急诊介入治疗术后心肌灌注及预后的影响[J]. 中国介入心脏病学杂志,2012,20(5): 262-266. ZHAO Lin, ZHANG Yuchen, GUO Chengjun, et al. Effect of admission estimated glomerular filtration rate on myocardial perfusion and prognosis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Chin J Intervent Cardiol, 2012, 20(5): 262-266.
[11] 王祥. 隐性肾功能不全对冠脉病变及临床预后的影响分析[D].长春:吉林大学,2014.
[12] 李凤丽,任法鑫,董梅.肾功能不全与心肌无复流关系的研究进展[J].医学综述, 2017, 23(6): 3245-3249. LI Fengli, REN Faxin, DONG Mei. Research progress of relationship between renal insufficiency and myocardial no-refolw[J]. Medical Recapitulate, 2017, 23(6): 3245-3249.
[13] Bolognese L, Falsini G, Liistro F, et al. Randomized comparison of upstream tirofiban versus downstream high bolus dose tirofiban or abciximab on tissue-level perfusion and troponin release in high-risk acute coronary syndromes treated with percutaneous coronary interventions: the EVEREST trial[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2006, 47(3): 522-528.
[14] Kaul S. The “no reflow” phenomenon following acute myocardial infarction: mechanisms and treatment options[J]. J Cardiol, 2014, 64(2): 77-85.
[15] Wong DT, Puri R, Richardson JD, et al. Myocardial 'no-reflow' -diagnosis, pathophysiology and treatment[J]. Int J Cardiol, 2013, 167(5): 1798-1806.
[16] Uyarel H, Ergelen M, Cicek G, et al. Red cell distribution width as a novel prognostic marker in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction[J]. Coronary Artery Dis, 2011, 22(3): 138-144.
[17] Azab B, Torbey E, Hatoum H, et al. Usefulness of red cell distribution width in predicting all-cause long-term mortality after non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction[J]. Cardiology, 2011, 119(2): 72-80.
[18] Campagna JA, Carter C. Clinical relevance of the Bezold-Jarisch reflex[J]. Anesthesiology, 2003, 98(5): 1250-1260.
[19] Esente P, Giambartolomei A, Gensini GG, et al. Coronary reperfusion and Bezold-Jarisch reflex(bradycardia and hypotension)[J]. Am J Cardiol, 1983, 52(3): 221-224.
[20] 陈泽江,黄修献,李昭祺.替罗非班联合硝普钠对急诊PCI术中无复流现象的疗效观察[J].湖南师范大学学报(医学版), 2018, 15(6): 123-126. CHEN Zejiang, HUANG Xiuxian, LI Zhaoqi. Efficacy of tirofiban combined with sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of no-reflow phenomenon during emergency PCI[J]. J Hunan Normal Univ(Med Sci), 2018, 15(6): 123-126.
[21] Klein LW, Kern MJ, Berger P, et al. Society of cardiac angiography and interventions: suggested management of the no-reflow phenomenon on the cardiac catheterization laboratory[J]. Cather Cardiovasc Interv, 2003, 60(2): 194-201.
[22] Muller O, Trana C, Eeckhout E. Myocardial no-reflow treatment[J]. Curr Vasc Pharmacol, 2013, 11(2): 278-285.
[23] Gupta S, Gupta MM. No reflow phenomenon in percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction[J]. Indian Heart J, 2016, 68(4): 539-551.
[24] 任晖,黄立勋,庄贵华,等.急性心肌梗死急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者院内死亡因素分析[J].心脏杂志,2014,26(6): 662-665. REN Hui, HUANG Lixun, ZHUANG Guihua, et al. Analysis of in-hospital death in acute myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency percutaneous coronary intervention[J].Chin Heart J, 2014, 26(6): 662-665.
[25] Ndrepepa G, Tiroch K, Fusaro M, et al. 5-year prognostic value of no-reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010, 55(21): 2383-2389.
[1] 黄玉真,吕琛,颜磊,李帅帅,张景雪,刘超,王银霞,桑岩岩,房鹛. 基于危险因素筛查的延续性院外管理对卵巢过度刺激综合征的预防效果[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2026, 64(4): 92-99.
[2] 逄锦宏,苏萍,乔俊鹏,陈巧巧,陈学禹,赵颖颖,施婕,孙晓茹,李秋春,何蕊言,范轶欧,迟蔚蔚. 老年人群可改变心血管危险因素聚集模式与脑卒中的关联[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(9): 11-19.
[3] 张政,王建伟,杨玉娟,张宇,宋西成. 哮喘儿童2008及2019年免疫球蛋白E变化及相关危险因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(7): 32-36.
[4] 李敬,郝盼盼. 急性心力衰竭患者出入院心率变化与预后相关性[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(4): 75-82.
[5] 程震宇,来庆国,吴梦涛. 髂股静脉支架置入术后再狭窄的影响因素研究进展[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(12): 112-117.
[6] 程跃启,王斐,于理想,郑超,余之刚. 曲妥珠单抗致HER2阳性乳腺癌患者心脏毒性的研究进展[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2025, 63(1): 17-24.
[7] 王浙宇,许懿,赵昌波,杨硕菲,倪其泓,陈佳佺,王韦仑,李一男,郭相江,叶猛,张岚,薛冠华. 腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后发生髂支闭塞的危险因素及处理对策[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2024, 62(9): 101-107.
[8] 郭鑫,孟君,郑世良,董秀红. 老年胃癌患者衰弱与人体成分的相关性[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2024, 62(4): 40-47.
[9] 李建,孙云. 新入维持性血液透析患者2年内死亡的危险因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2024, 62(4): 48-53.
[10] 宋甜田,李作坤,王书会. 个体化预测老年心脏瓣膜置换术后医院感染风险Nomogram模型的构建[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2024, 62(1): 48-56.
[11] 曲永强,赵泽宇,吴兴原,韩玮,段瑞生,李衍滨,李亨. 颈动脉分叉处支架置入术后严重持续性低血压的危险因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2023, 61(7): 78-82.
[12] 宋晗,王振华,韦铎亮,徐凯,李博文,赵鑫. 术前MELD分级对304例急性StandfordA型主动脉夹层患者术后早期结局的影响[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2023, 61(5): 31-36.
[13] 张蒙,马伟. 1990—2019年中国人类免疫缺陷病毒/获得性免疫缺陷综合征流行趋势及疾病负担[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2023, 61(5): 84-89.
[14] 穆彦熹,李金洲,陈康,梁红英,姚亚龙,汪文杰,陈晓. 443例胃癌根治术后发生肺部并发症的危险因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2023, 61(4): 37-41.
[15] 邵长秀,贺青卿,庄晓璇,李小磊,周鹏,岳涛,高远,徐婧,李陈钰,郭浩男,庄大勇. 934例甲状腺微小乳头状癌颈淋巴结部位转移及危险因素[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2023, 61(2): 57-64.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!