Scholarlink

Background <p>While the ‘no-reflow’ phenomenon is a well-recognized complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), its incidence, predictors, and clinical implications in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-AMI remain insufficiently characterized. We investigated the clinical and procedural predictors of the no-reflow in patients undergoing elective PCI for non-AMI.</p> Methods <p>Among 10,801 patients in a single-center prospective PCI registry (2013–2024), 3,904 patients with non-AMI who underwent elective PCI were included. No-reflow was defined as transient or persistent thrombolysis in myocardial flow &lt; 3 without proximal obstruction. Independent predictors were identified using multivariable logistic regression with cluster-robust standard errors. Machine learning (ML) models were also developed to assess predictive performance.</p> Results <p>No-reflow was observed in 94 (2.4%) patients. No-reflow was associated with more complex lesions and higher rates of procedural complication rates. Independent predictors of no-reflow included atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR] 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–4.49, <i>p</i> = 0.031), male sex (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.15–3.74, <i>p</i> = 0.015), and a device-to-vessel ratio &gt; 1.1 (OR 14.4, 95% CI 3.71–56.1, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), while current or former smoking was inversely associated (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.89, <i>p</i> = 0.017). Although ML models were developed to predict no-reflow, their performance was limited owing to the rarity of events.</p> Conclusions <p>No-reflow is an infrequent but clinically relevant complication of elective PCI for patients with non-AMI. Atrial fibrillation, male sex, and stent oversizing were independent predictors, whereas smoking history was inversely associated. These findings underscore the importance of procedural planning and individualized risk assessment in non-AMI PCI.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Prediction of no-reflow phenomenon in elective percutaneous coronary intervention for non-acute myocardial infarction

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月3日

查看全文
  • Ho Sung Jeon,
  • Young Jin Youn,
  • Tae Sic Lee,
  • Su Yong Kim,
  • Sang Jun Lee,
  • Se-Eun Kim,
  • Jung-Hee Lee,
  • Young Jun Park,
  • Jung-Woo Son,
  • Jun-Won Lee,
  • Min-Soo Ahn,
  • Sung Gyun Ahn,
  • Jang-Young Kim,
  • Byung-Su Yoo

摘要

Background

While the ‘no-reflow’ phenomenon is a well-recognized complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), its incidence, predictors, and clinical implications in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-AMI remain insufficiently characterized. We investigated the clinical and procedural predictors of the no-reflow in patients undergoing elective PCI for non-AMI.

Methods

Among 10,801 patients in a single-center prospective PCI registry (2013–2024), 3,904 patients with non-AMI who underwent elective PCI were included. No-reflow was defined as transient or persistent thrombolysis in myocardial flow < 3 without proximal obstruction. Independent predictors were identified using multivariable logistic regression with cluster-robust standard errors. Machine learning (ML) models were also developed to assess predictive performance.

Results

No-reflow was observed in 94 (2.4%) patients. No-reflow was associated with more complex lesions and higher rates of procedural complication rates. Independent predictors of no-reflow included atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR] 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–4.49, p = 0.031), male sex (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.15–3.74, p = 0.015), and a device-to-vessel ratio > 1.1 (OR 14.4, 95% CI 3.71–56.1, p < 0.001), while current or former smoking was inversely associated (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.89, p = 0.017). Although ML models were developed to predict no-reflow, their performance was limited owing to the rarity of events.

Conclusions

No-reflow is an infrequent but clinically relevant complication of elective PCI for patients with non-AMI. Atrial fibrillation, male sex, and stent oversizing were independent predictors, whereas smoking history was inversely associated. These findings underscore the importance of procedural planning and individualized risk assessment in non-AMI PCI.

Graphical Abstract