Why the study?
Does a high white blood cell count on admission predict impaired myocardial reperfusion in patients with recanalized anterior acute myocardial infarction?
Does a high white blood cell count on admission predict impaired myocardial reperfusion in patients with recanalized anterior acute myocardial infarction?
An elevated white blood cell count on admission is strongly associated with impaired microvascular reperfusion in patients undergoing early recanalization for anterior acute myocardial infarction.
May aid reperfusion risk stratification in early recanalized anterior AMI; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of the white blood cell (WBC) count on admission in relation to the duration of ischemia in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: The relationship of the WBC count on admission to myocardial reperfusion was examined in 135 patients with recanalization of an anterior AMI within 6 h of symptom onset. Patients were classified according to the WBC count on admission: Group L (n=75), WBC count <12,000 cells/mm(3) and group H (n=60), WBC count >or=12,000 cells/mm(3). Peak creatine kinase (CK) was higher and impaired myocardial reperfusion, defined as a myocardial blush grade of 0/1, was more frequent in group H than in group L. Among the patients in group H, those with early (<or=3 h) recanalization had a lower QRS score before recanalization than those with late (>3 h) recanalization; however, peak CK and the incidence of impaired myocardial reperfusion were similar in these subgroups of patients. Multivariate analysis showed that WBC count >or=12,000 cells/mm(3) on admission was an independent predictor of impaired myocardial reperfusion in patients with early recanalization (odds ratio 7.9, p=0.04), but not in those with late recanalization. CONCLUSIONS: A higher WBC count may be associated with progression of myocardial damage after recanalization in patients with early recanalization of an anterior AMI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kosuge et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: