CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Acute Noncardiac Organ Failure in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction Revascularization Strategies in STEMI with Multivessel Disease: Deciding on Culprit Versus Complete-Ad Hoc or Staged Prevalence of Angina Among Primary Care Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Association of Thrombus Aspiration With Time and Mortality Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized TOTAL Trial Eruptive Calcified Nodules as a Potential Mechanism of Acute Coronary Thrombosis and Sudden Death Cardiac Shock Care Centers: JACC Review Topic of the Week Optimum Blood Pressure in Patients With Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Arrest Invasive Versus Medical Management in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery With a Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Predicting Major Adverse Events in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical Case Study2017 Dec 26;10(24):2528-2535.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Nonculprit Stenosis Evaluation Using Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Thim T, Götberg M, Fröbert O et al. Keywords: FFR; complete primary revascularization; full revascularization; iFR; primary PCI

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to examine the level of agreement between acute instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) measured across nonculprit stenoses in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and iFR measured at a staged follow-up procedure.


BACKGROUND - Acute full revascularization of nonculprit stenoses in STEMI is debated and currently guided by angiography. Acute functional assessment of nonculprit stenoses may be considered.


METHODS - Immediately after successful primary culprit intervention for STEMI, nonculprit coronary stenoses were evaluated with iFR and left untreated. Follow-up evaluation with iFR was performed at a later stage. iFR <0.90 was considered hemodynamically significant.


RESULTS - One hundred twenty patients with 157 nonculprit lesions were included. Median acute iFR was 0.89 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.82 to 0.94; n = 156), and median follow-up iFR was 0.91 (interquartile range: 0.86 to 0.96; n = 147). Classification agreement was 78% between acute and follow-up iFR. The negative predictive value of acute iFR was 89%. Median time from acute to follow-up evaluation was 16 days (IQR: 5 to 32 days). With follow-up within 5 days after STEMI, no difference was observed between acute and follow-up iFR, and classification agreement was 89%. With follow-up ≥16 days after STEMI, acute iFR was lower than follow-up iFR, and classification agreement was 70%.


CONCLUSIONS - Acute iFR evaluation appeared valid for ruling out significant nonculprit stenoses in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The time interval from acute to follow-up iFR influenced classification agreement, suggesting that inherent physiological disarrangements during STEMI may contribute to classification disagreement.


Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.