Suppr超能文献

心肌梗死后亚急性期非梗死相关动脉的冠状动脉微循环:对生理学指导血运重建的启示。

Coronary Microcirculation Downstream Non-Infarct-Related Arteries in the Subacute Phase of Myocardial Infarction: Implications for Physiology-Guided Revascularization.

机构信息

1 Hospital Clínico San Carlos IDISSC and Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid Spain.

2 Division of Cardiology Department of Internal Medicine Heart Vascular Stroke Institute Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine Seoul Korea.

出版信息

J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 May 7;8(9):e011534. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.011534.

Abstract

Background Concerns exist about reliability of pressure-wire-guided coronary revascularization of non-infarct-related arteries (non- IRA ). We investigated whether physiological assessment of non- IRA during the subacute phase of myocardial infarction might be flawed by microcirculatory dysfunction. Methods and Results We analyzed non- IRA that underwent fractional flow reserve, coronary flow reserve, and the index of microcirculatory resistance assessment. Microcirculation and hyperemic response were evaluated in 49 acute myocardial infarction patients (59 non- IRA ) and compared with a matched control group of 46 stable angina ( SA ) patients (59 vessels). Time between acute myocardial infarction to physiological interrogation was 5.9±2.4 days. Fractional flow reserve was similar in both groups (0.79±0.11 in non- IRA versus 0.80±0.13 in SA vessels, P=0.527). Lower coronary flow reserve values were found in non- IRA compared with SA vessels (1.77 [1.25-2.76] versus 2.44 [1.63-4.00], P=0.018), primarily driven by an increased baseline flow in non- IRA (rest mean transit time 0.58 [0.32-0.83] versus 0.65 s [0.39-1.20], P=0.045), whereas the hyperemic flow was similar (hyperemic mean transit time 0.26 [0.20-0.42] versus 0.26 s [0.18-0.35], P=0.873). No differences were found regarding index of microcirculatory resistance (15.6 [10.4-21.8] in non- IRA versus 16.7 [11.6-23.6] U in SA vessels, P=0.559). During adenosine infusion, the hyperemic response was similar in both groups (non- IRA versus SA vessels) in terms of the resistive reserve ratio (3.1±2.1 versus 3.7±2.2, P=0.118). Conclusions In the subacute phase of myocardial infarction, non- IRA show an increased baseline flow that may cause abnormal coronary flow reserve despite preserved hyperemic flow. In non- IRA , microcirculatory resistance and adenosine-induced hyperemic response are similar to those found in SA patients. From a physiological perspective, these findings support the use of fractional flow reserve to interrogate non- IRA during the subacute phase of myocardial infarction.

摘要

背景

对于非梗死相关动脉(non-IRA)的压力导丝指导下的冠状动脉血运重建的可靠性存在担忧。我们研究了在心肌梗死的亚急性期,非 IRA 的生理评估是否可能受到微循环功能障碍的影响。

方法和结果

我们分析了接受了血流储备分数(fractional flow reserve,FFR)、冠状动脉血流储备(coronary flow reserve,CFR)和微血管阻力指数(index of microcirculatory resistance,IMR)评估的非 IRA。在 49 名急性心肌梗死患者(59 支非 IRA)中评估了微循环和充血反应,并与 46 名稳定性心绞痛(stable angina,SA)患者(59 支血管)的匹配对照组进行了比较。急性心肌梗死至生理检查的时间为 5.9±2.4 天。两组的 FFR 相似(非 IRA 为 0.79±0.11,SA 血管为 0.80±0.13,P=0.527)。与 SA 血管相比,非 IRA 的 CFR 值较低(1.77[1.25-2.76]与 2.44[1.63-4.00],P=0.018),主要是由于非 IRA 的基础流量增加(静息平均通过时间 0.58[0.32-0.83]与 0.65 s[0.39-1.20],P=0.045),而充血流量相似(充血平均通过时间 0.26[0.20-0.42]与 0.26 s[0.18-0.35],P=0.873)。在 IMR 方面没有差异(非 IRA 为 15.6[10.4-21.8],SA 血管为 16.7[11.6-23.6]U,P=0.559)。在腺苷输注期间,两组的充血反应相似(非 IRA 与 SA 血管),在阻力储备比方面(3.1±2.1 与 3.7±2.2,P=0.118)。

结论

在心肌梗死的亚急性期,非 IRA 显示基础流量增加,尽管充血流量正常,但可能导致异常的冠状动脉血流储备。在非 IRA 中,微血管阻力和腺苷诱导的充血反应与 SA 患者相似。从生理角度来看,这些发现支持在心肌梗死的亚急性期使用 FFR 来检查非 IRA。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验