Treatment Outcomes in STEMI Patients With No/Slow-Reflow Phenomenon, Depending on Age
https://doi.org/10.35401/2541-9897-2023-8-4-15-24
Abstract
Objective: To assess the risks of no/slow-reflow phenomena and treatment outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from different age groups.
Materials and methods: We analyzed treatment outcomes of 535 STEMI patients who were divided into 4 groups based on their age: 33 patients younger than 44 years (group 1), 209 patients aged 45 to 59 years (group 2), 247 patients aged 60 to 74 years (group 3), and 46 patients aged 75 to 80 years (group 4).
Results: Our study revealed that among the young people STEMI is more often found in men, whereas in the older population the number of women increases accounting for 37% (compare with 3% among the young patients). It was also shown that with age, statistically significantly more coronary stents (P = .009, KruskalWallis test) are needed to repair an infarct-related coronary artery lesion. The time required to perform a percutaneous coronary intervention was statistically significantly higher in the older adults than in the young patients (P = .022, Kruskal-Wallis test).
Conclusions: Our study found that the frequency of deaths was higher in STEMI patients from the older age groups (9.30% and 10.90%), whereas in the young patients, no deaths were registered during the 30-day followup. In the middleaged patients, mortality accounted for 3.3%. The reported differences were statistically significant (P = .016, Pearson’s χ2). The analysis of overall survival based on the age group revealed statistically significant differences (likelihood ratio test, P = .006).
About the Authors
G. V. Sazanov
Stavropol Regional Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Grigoriy V. Sazanov, Interventional Radiologist, Division of ImageGuided Diagnosis and Surgery
ulitsa Semashko 1, Stavropol, 355000
Z. Kh. Shugushev
Institute of Medicine,Patrice Lumumba Peoples’ Friendship University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Zaurbek Kh. Shugushev, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of the Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Faculty of Continuous Medical Education
Moscow
O. S. Belokon
Stavropol Regional Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oleg S. Belokon, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Head of the Division of ImageGuided Diagnosis and Surgery
Stavropol
S. V. Ermakov
Stavropol Regional Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergey V. Ermakov, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Neurologist, Neurosurgery Unit No. 1, Interventional Radiologist, Division of ImageGuided Diagnosis and Surgery
Stavropol
A. V. Mukovnikova
Stavropol Regional Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna V. Mukovnikova, Clinical Pathologist, Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory
Stavropol
References
1. Bhatt DL, LopesRD, HarringtonRA. Diagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syndromes: a review. JAMA. 2022;327(7):662–675. Published correction appears in JAMA. 2022;327(17):1710. PMID: 35166796. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.0358
2. Rezkalla SH, Kloner RA. Coronary no-reflow phenomenon. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2005;7(1):75–80. PMID: 15913506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-005-0008-0
3. Claessen BE, Maehara A, Fahy M, Xu K, Stone GW, Mintz GS. Plaque composition by intravascular ultrasound and distal embolization after percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(3 Suppl):S111–S118. PMID: 22421225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.11.018
4. De Luca G, van ‘t Hof AW, de Boer MJ, et al. Impaired myocardial perfusion is a major explanation of the poor outcome observed in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and signs of heart failure. Circulation. 2004;109(8):958–961. PMID: 14981008. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000120504.31457.28
5. Rezkalla SH, Stankowski RV, Hanna J, Kloner RA. Management of no-reflow phenomenon in the catheterization laboratory. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(3):215–223. Published correction appears in JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(12):1282. PMID: 28183461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.11.059
6. Wang J, Toan J, Zhou S. New insights into the role of mitochondria in cardiac microvascular ischemia/reperfusion injury. Angiogenesis. 2020;23(3):299–314. PMID: 32246225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10456-020-09720-2
7. Prasad A, Stone GW, Stuckey TD, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on myocardial perfusion after primary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(4):508–514. PMID: 15708696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.10.054
8. TimmerJR, van der Horst IC, de Luca G, et al; Zwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group. Comparison of myocardial perfusion after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95(11):1375–1377. PMID: 15904649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.01.088
9. Iwakura K, Ito H, Kawano S, et al. Predictive factors for development of the no-reflow phenomenon in patients with reperfused anterior wall acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38(2):472–477. PMID: 11499740. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01405-x
10. Namazi M, Mahmoudi E, Safi M, et al. The no-reflow phenomenon: is it predictable by demographic factors and routine laboratory data?. Acta Biomed. 2021;92(5):e2021297. PMID: 34738591. PMCID: PMC8689329. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v92i5.10053
11. Sazanov GV, Belokon’ OS. The effect of predilation on the incidence of the no/slow-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute coronary syndrome with ST segment elevation. Kazan Medical Journal. 2020;101(2):284–288. Published correction appears in Kazan Medical Journal. 2020;101(3):480. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17816/KMJ2020-284
12. Shakiba M, Salari A, Mirbolouk F, Sotudeh N, Nikfarjam S. Clinical, laboratory, and procedural predictors of no-reflow in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Tehran Heart Cent. 2020;15(2):50–56. PMID: 33552194. PMCID: PMC7825467. https://doi.org/10.18502/jthc.v15i2.4183
13. Kalayci A, Oduncu V, Karabay CY, et al. Outcomes of direct stenting in patients with ST-elevated myocardial. Herz. 2018;43(5):447–454. PMID: 28616647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-017-4581-2
14. Berger PB, Ellis SG, Holmes DR, et al. Relationship between delay in performing direct coronary angioplasty and early clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the global use of strategies to open occluded arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO-IIb) trial. Circulation. 1999;100(1):14–20. PMID: 10393675. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.100.1.14
15. Mehta RH, Harjai KJ, Cox D, et al; Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) Investigators. Clinical and angiographic correlates and outcomes of suboptimal coronary flow inpatients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(10):1739–1746. PMID: 14642681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2003.07.012
16. Sazanov GV, Shugushev ZKh, Belokon OS, Ermakov SV, Khripunova AA. Dilation of the infarct-related coronary artery to reduce the incidence of the no-reflow phenomenon in STEMI patients. Innovative Medicine of Kuban. 2023;8(3):54–61. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.35401/2541-9897-2023-26-3-54-61
Review
For citations:
Sazanov G.V., Shugushev Z.Kh., Belokon O.S., Ermakov S.V., Mukovnikova A.V. Treatment Outcomes in STEMI Patients With No/Slow-Reflow Phenomenon, Depending on Age. Innovative Medicine of Kuban. 2023;(4):15-24. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.35401/2541-9897-2023-8-4-15-24
Views:
1044
Email this article 
