2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2019.100417
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

No-reflow phenomenon in acute myocardial infarction: Relieve pressure from the procedure and focus attention to the patient

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
3
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…according to previous studies [16,17]. In the present study, we observed that the incidence of NR was 22.7%, which was consistent with the aforementioned studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…according to previous studies [16,17]. In the present study, we observed that the incidence of NR was 22.7%, which was consistent with the aforementioned studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective design of the study. (17) 42 (14) 52 (17) 4, n (%) 65 (21) 65 (22) 58 (19) 5, n (%) 9 (3) 7 (2) 15 (5) No-reflow, n (%) 36 (12) 70 (23) 100 (33) <0.001…”
Section: Compliance With Ethical Standardsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, the incidence of NR is significantly higher than in elective procedures, which may range from 5% to as high as 10% compared to in prior studies. [17][18][19] In the present analysis, we found that the incidence of NR was 8.9%, which was similar to the reported clinical studies. Although the underlying mechanisms causing NR have not been thoroughly elucidated, it has been shown that certain clinical and complete blood count parameters at admission, such as older age, white blood cell count, and hemoglobin levels can predict the occurrence of NR in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Initial markers of cardiac injury for patients with true STEMI in the COVID-19 era were not significantly higher than those with true STEMI before the COVID-19 era, suggesting that patients in our geographic location may not be waiting longer at home before presenting to the hospital for care. Furthermore, the rates of no reflow phenomenon and high thrombus burden, both markers of delayed presentation for STEMI [6], and allcause mortality were not different in our limited number of patients with true STEMI before and during the COVID-19 era. This may be due to the fact that the number of patients infected with COVID-19 in Los Angeles County [7] has not been as high as other regions of the country.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 59%