Key result
Coronary no-reflow remains a lethal post-revascularization injury mechanism lacking uniformly successful treatments to reduce mortality.
Why the study?
Coronary no-reflow mechanisms remain poorly understood in humans, and proposed strategies have not uniformly reduced mortality or prevented adverse left ventricular remodeling.
This review summarizes the pathophysiology, clinical predictors, investigations, and management of the coronary no-reflow phenomenon following percutaneous intervention.
No-reflow drives ongoing post-revascularization mortality without proven therapies; leaves open targeted treatment development.
Coronary no-reflow phenomenon is a lethal mechanism of ongoing myocardial injury following successful revascularization of an infarct-related coronary artery. Incidence of this phenomenon is high following percutaneous intervention and is associated with adverse in-hospital and long-term outcomes. Several mechanisms such as ischemia-reperfusion injury and distal microthromboembolism in genetically susceptible patients and those with preexisting endothelial dysfunction have been implicated. However, the exact mechanism in humans is still poorly understood. Several investigative and treatment strategies within and outside the cardiac catheterization laboratory have been proposed, but they have not uniformly shown success in reducing mortality or in preventing adverse left ventricular remodeling resulting from this condition. The aim of this article is to provide a brief and concise review of the current understanding of the pathophysiology, clinical predictors, and investigations and management of coronary no-reflow phenomenon.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaur et al. (2022) conducted a review in Coronary No-Reflow Phenomenon. Coronary no-reflow phenomenon is a lethal mechanism of ongoing myocardial injury following successful revascularization that currently lacks uniformly successful treatment strategies to reduce mortality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: