Identification of High-Risk Patients After ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Comparison Between Angiographic and Magnetic Resonance Parameters

Background— The incidence of angiographic no reflow (NR) and microvascular obstruction (MVO) at cardiac magnetic resonance is significantly different. The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of NR and MVO in a cohort of consecutive patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary interventions. Methods and Results— In this prospective study, 88 consecutive ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients were enrolled within 12 hours from symptoms onset. All patients underwent cardiac magnetic resonance between 2 and 5 days after primary percutaneous coronary interventions. NR was defined as thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade ⩽2 and as myocardial blush grade <2. Presence of early or late MVO was assessed 4 and 10 to 15 minutes after gadolinium injection. Thirty-one patients (36%) had evidence of NR, whereas 58 (67%) had MVO. One NR patient did not have MVO. In contrast, NR was present in 30 of 58 MVO patients. MVO patients had higher troponin T peak (P<0.0001), larger late gadolinium enhancement area (P<0.0001), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001) because of an increased end-systolic volume (P=0.015). In contrast, patients with NR had higher troponin T peak (P=0.006) but similar late gadolinium enhancement area (P=0.24) compared with those without NR. Major cardiovascular adverse events–free survival was worse in patients with MVO (P=0.014), although it was similar in patients with and without NR (P=0.33). The independent predictors of major cardiovascular adverse events were MVO (hazard ratio, 3.418; P=0.046) and ischemic time (hazard ratio, 1.016; P<0.001). MVO was a strong predictor of target lesion revascularization occurrence (P=0.017 for log-rank test). Conclusions— Compared with coronary angiography performed soon after recanalization of the culprit artery, cardiac magnetic resonance performed during index hospitalization provides better prognostic stratification of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary interventions. Another novel finding of our study is a significantly increased rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the index event culprit vessel in patients with MVO.

[1]  A. Radjenovic,et al.  Comparative Prognostic Utility of Indexes of Microvascular Function Alone or in Combination in Patients With an Acute ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction , 2016, Circulation.

[2]  P. Camici,et al.  Novel insights into an "old" phenomenon: the no reflow. , 2015, International journal of cardiology.

[3]  K. Sakakura,et al.  Transient no reflow following primary percutaneous coronary intervention , 2014, Heart and Vessels.

[4]  C. Reid,et al.  Usefulness of transient and persistent no reflow to predict adverse clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2012, American Journal of Cardiology.

[5]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). , 2011, European heart journal.

[6]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Thrombus aspiration in ST elevation myocardial infarction: comparative efficacy in patients treated early and late after onset of symptoms , 2010, Heart.

[7]  S. Iliceto,et al.  Relationship between myocardial blush grades, staining, and severe microvascular damage after primary percutaneous coronary intervention a study performed with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance in a large consecutive series of patients. , 2010, American heart journal.

[8]  R. Kloner,et al.  Coronary no‐reflow phenomenon: From the experimental laboratory to the cardiac catheterization laboratory , 2008, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[9]  P. Algra,et al.  Functional recovery after acute myocardial infarction: comparison between angiography, electrocardiography, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance measures of microvascular injury. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  F. Fedele,et al.  The extent of microvascular damage during myocardial contrast echocardiography is superior to other known indexes of post-infarct reperfusion in predicting left ventricular remodeling: results of the multicenter AMICI study. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  A. Banning,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention and the no-reflow phenomenon , 2007, Expert review of cardiovascular therapy.

[12]  R. Kornowski,et al.  Effect of no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction on six-month mortality. , 2007, The American journal of cardiology.

[13]  M. Josephson,et al.  Prognostic utility of comparative methods for assessment of ST-segment resolution after primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: the Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (CADILLAC) trial. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  G. Parodi,et al.  Impact of Microvascular Dysfunction on Left Ventricular Remodeling and Long-Term Clinical Outcome After Primary Coronary Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial Infarction , 2004, Circulation.

[15]  I. Porto,et al.  Temporal evolution and functional outcome of no reflow: sustained and spontaneously reversible patterns following successful coronary recanalisation , 2003, Heart.

[16]  Felix Zijlstra,et al.  Angiographic Assessment of Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction by Myocardial Blush Grade , 2003, Circulation.

[17]  E. Braunwald,et al.  Relationship of the TIMI Myocardial Perfusion Grades, Flow Grades, Frame Count, and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to Long-Term Outcomes After Thrombolytic Administration in Acute Myocardial Infarction , 2002, Circulation.

[18]  M. Kern,et al.  The coronary no-reflow phenomenon: a review of mechanisms and therapies. , 2001, European heart journal.

[19]  H. Suryapranata,et al.  Angiographic assessment of myocardial reperfusion in patients treated with primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: myocardial blush grade. Zwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group. , 1998, Circulation.

[20]  Katherine C. Wu,et al.  Prognostic significance of microvascular obstruction by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with acute myocardial infarction. , 1998, Circulation.

[21]  Felix Zijlstra,et al.  Clinical value of 12-lead electrocardiogram after successful reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction , 1997, The Lancet.

[22]  D. Julian Treatment of cardiac arrest in acute myocardial ischaemia and infarction. , 1961, Lancet.

[23]  Baris Gencer,et al.  ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation , 2011 .

[24]  S. Rizzo,et al.  The metamorphosis of myocardial infarction following coronary recanalization. , 2010, Cardiovascular pathology : the official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Pathology.

[25]  H. S. Mueller,et al.  The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial. Phase I findings. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.