The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Implications of the ‘No Reflow’ Phenomenon: A Predictor of Complications and Left Ventricular Remodeling in Reperfused Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction
Abstract
Background Recent studies demonstrated that the “no reflow” phenomenon after coronary reflow implies the presence of advanced myocardial damage. In this study, we verified the prognostic value of the detection of this phenomenon by studying complications, left ventricular morphology, and in-hospital survival after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods and Results The study population consisted of 126 patients with a first anterior AMI. All patients received coronary reflow within 24 hours of onset of symptoms and underwent myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) before and shortly after coronary reflow with an intracoronary injection of sonicated microbubbles. From contrast reperfusion patterns, patients were divided into two subsets: those with MCE no reflow (47 patients, 37%) and those with MCE reflow (79 patients). There was no difference in the frequency of arrhythmia or coronary events between the two subsets. Pericardial effusion and early congestive heart failure were observed more frequently in patients with MCE no reflow than in those with MCE reflow (26% versus 4%, P <.05; 45% versus 15%, P <.05, respectively). Congestive heart failure tended to be prolonged in those with MCE no reflow, and 3 patients (7%) of this subset died of pump failure. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume progressively increased in the convalescent stage in patients with MCE no reflow (early versus late, 145±43 versus 169±60 mL, P <.001), whereas it decreased in those with MCE reflow (154±42 versus 144±44 mL, P <.01). Conclusions The substantial size of the MCE no reflow phenomenon at coronary reflow conveys useful information about an outcome of coronary intervention and left ventricular remodeling in individual patients with anterior wall AMI, although these are suggestive results in a limited number of patients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The “no-reflow” phenomenon after temporary coronary occlusion in the dog
Kloner, R. A., Ganote, C. E., & Jennings, R. B. (1974) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci107898 · Cited by 1,842
Cited by
Myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury: a neglected therapeutic target
Hausenloy, D. J., & Yellon, D. M. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci62874 · Cited by 2,357
Weir, R. A. P., Murphy, C. A., Petrie, C. J., Martin, T. N., Balmain, S., Clements, S., Steedman, T., Wagner, G. S., Dargie, H. J., & McMurray, J. J. V. (2010) · Circulation Cardiovascular Imaging · doi:10.1161/circimaging.109.897439 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Ito, H., Maruyama, A., Iwakura, K., Takiuchi, S., Masuyama, T., Hori, M., Higashino, Y., Fujii, K., & Minamino, T.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 1996-01-15
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 223-228
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2051732586
- Cited by
- 1,021
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.