CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis Heart Regeneration by Endogenous Stem Cells and Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Controversy, Fallacy, and Progress Coronary CT Angiography and 5-Year Risk of Myocardial Infarction High-Sensitivity Troponin and The Application of Risk Stratification Thresholds in Patients with Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Timing of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Administration in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Chronic total occlusion intervention of the non-infarct-related artery in acute myocardial infarction patients: the Korean multicenter chronic total occlusion registry Prognostic Value of SYNTAX Score in Patients With Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial Risk Stratification Guided by the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure in 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.