1. Gradual Versus Abrupt Reperfusion During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction (GUARD)
- Author
-
Murat Sezer, Javier Escaned, Christopher J. Broyd, Berrin Umman, Zehra Bugra, Ilke Ozcan, Mehmet Rasih Sonsoz, Alp Ozcan, Adem Atici, Emre Aslanger, Z. Irem Sezer, Justin E. Davies, Niels van Royen, and Sabahattin Umman
- Subjects
coronary microvascular resistance ,intramyocardial hemorrhage ,microvascular injury ,myocardial edema ,primary PCI ,reperfusion injury ,Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system ,RC666-701 - Abstract
Background Intramyocardial edema and hemorrhage are key pathological mechanisms in the development of reperfusion‐related microvascular damage in ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction. These processes may be facilitated by abrupt restoration of intracoronary pressure and flow triggered by primary percutaneous coronary intervention. We investigated whether pressure‐controlled reperfusion via gradual reopening of the infarct‐related artery may limit microvascular injury in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Results A total of 83 patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction were assessed for eligibility and 53 who did not meet inclusion criteria were excluded. The remaining 30 patients with totally occluded infarct‐related artery were randomized to the pressure‐controlled reperfusion with delayed stenting (PCRDS) group (n=15) or standard primary percutaneous coronary intervention with immediate stenting (IS) group (n=15) (intention‐to‐treat population). Data from 5 patients in each arm were unsuitable to be included in the final analysis. Finally, 20 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention who were randomly assigned to either IS (n=10) or PCRDS (n=10) were included. In the PCRDS arm, a 1.5‐mm balloon was used to achieve initial reperfusion with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow and, subsequently, to control distal intracoronary pressure over a 30‐minute monitoring period (MP) until stenting was performed. In both study groups, continuous assessment of coronary hemodynamics with intracoronary pressure and Doppler flow velocity was performed, with a final measurement of zero flow pressure (primary end point of the study) at the end of a 60‐minute MP. There were no complications associated with IS or PCRDS. PCRDS effectively led to lower distal intracoronary pressures than IS over 30 minutes after reperfusion (71.2±9.37 mm Hg versus 90.13±12.09 mm Hg, P=0.001). Significant differences were noted between study arms in the microcirculatory response over MP. Microvascular perfusion progressively deteriorated in the IS group and at the end of MP, and hyperemic microvascular resistance was significantly higher in the IS arm as compared with the PCDRS arm (2.83±0.56 mm Hg.s.cm−1 versus 1.83±0.53 mm Hg.s.cm−1, P=0.001). The primary end point (zero flow pressure) was significantly lower in the PCRDS group than in the IS group (41.46±17.85 mm Hg versus 76.87±21.34 mm Hg, P=0.001). In the whole study group (n=20), reperfusion pressures measured at predefined stages in the early reperfusion period showed robust associations with zero flow pressure values measured at the end of the 1‐hour MP (immediately after reperfusion: r=0.782, P
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF