Key result
Stenting increased TIMI 2 flow to TIMI 3 flow significantly more in patients with type 1 TIMI 2 flow compared to those with type 2 TIMI 2 flow (67% vs 0%; P=0.003).
Why the study?
Does the type of TIMI 2 flow pattern predict improvement in TIMI grade and left ventricular wall motion recovery after additional stenting in patients with recanalized anterior acute myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=35)
Does the type of TIMI 2 flow pattern predict improvement in TIMI grade and left ventricular wall motion recovery after additional stenting in patients with recanalized anterior acute myocardial infarction?
Differentiation between two types of TIMI 2 flow patterns can predict whether additional stenting will improve TIMI grade and left ventricular wall motion recovery in patients with anterior acute myocardial infarction.
TIMI 2 flow subtype may predict stenting response in recanalized anterior AMI; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: A residual stenosis and/or microvascular damage have been proposed as mechanisms of TIMI 2 flow for acute myocardial infarction. Coronary flow dynamics were assessed in patients with TIMI 2 flow to predict whether additional intervention would improve TIMI grade. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 35 patients who had a successfully recanalized anterior acute myocardial infarction using angioplasty or rescue stenting, coronary flow patterns were compared with corresponding TIMI grade and regional left ventricular wall motion (LVWM) 1 month after the intervention. After angioplasty, the time-averaged peak velocity (APV) was lower in patients with TIMI 2 flow (n=22) than in those with TIMI 3 flow (n=13; 7.9+/-3.9 versus 20.6+/-5.1 cm/s; P<0.001). Two different flow patterns were recorded in patients with TIMI 2 flow (versus TIMI 3, P<0.001); patients with type 1 TIMI 2 flow (n=15) had a reduced diastolic APV (8.3+/-4.8 versus 24.2+/-7.4 cm/s), prolonged diastolic deceleration time (1176+/-455 versus 728+/-205 ms), and a small diastolic/systolic APV ratio (1.3+/-0.6 versus 2.1+/-0.7); patients with type 2 TIMI 2 flow (n=7) had systolic flow reversal (systolic APV, -7.9+/-4.6 versus 11. 7+/-4.5 cm/s), a rapid diastolic deceleration time (221+/-84 versus 728+/-205 ms), and a negative diastolic/systolic APV ratio (-2.1+/-1. 4 versus 2.1+/-0.7). A significantly lower mean chord LVWM (-3.0+/-0. 2 versus -1.9+/-0.8; P<0.001) and a greater number of chords <-2SD (50+/-2 versus 28+/-18; P<0.001) were present in patients with type 2 versus type 1 TIMI 2 flow. Stenting increased TIMI 2 flow to TIMI 3 flow more in patients with type 1 than type 2 flow (67% versus 0%; P=0.003). Patients with TIMI 2 flow after stenting continued to demonstrate a type 2 pattern, and they had poor LVWM recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The differentiation between 2 types of TIMI 2 flow can predict the improvement of TIMI grade and LVWM recovery after additional stenting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akasaka et al. (2000) conducted an observational in anterior acute myocardial infarction (n=35). Type 1 TIMI 2 flow pattern vs. Type 2 TIMI 2 flow pattern was evaluated on Improvement to TIMI 3 flow after stenting (p=0.003). Stenting increased TIMI 2 flow to TIMI 3 flow significantly more in patients with type 1 TIMI 2 flow compared to those with type 2 TIMI 2 flow (67% vs 0%; P=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: