Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 30;74(1):70.
doi: 10.1186/s43044-022-00309-2.

Correlation between endothelial dysfunction and occurrence of no-reflow in patients undergoing post-thrombolysis early invasive percutaneous intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Mohamed Abdel Wahab Elbendary  1 , Mohamed Ayman Saleh  2 , Sameh Saleh Sabet  2 , Islam Bastawy  3
Affiliations

Correlation between endothelial dysfunction and occurrence of no-reflow in patients undergoing post-thrombolysis early invasive percutaneous intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Mohamed Abdel Wahab Elbendary et al. Egypt Heart J. .

Abstract

Background: Endothelial dysfunction and no-reflow share microcirculatory obstruction as a common pathophysiological mechanism. This study evaluated the relationship between systemic peripheral endothelial dysfunction assessed by flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery and no-reflow in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who received successful fibrinolysis.

Results: This study included 150 patients managed by the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after successful fibrinolysis. Patients were divided according to coronary angiographic success into normal flow versus no-reflow groups. According to FMD measured through brachial artery ultrasound, patients were divided based on their endothelial function into endothelial dysfunction versus normal endothelial function. No-reflow occurred in 44 patients (29.3%). No-reflow patients had longer pain to door time (6.52 ± 1.82 vs 5.19 ± 1.85 h), more Killip class II (36.4% vs 16%, p = 0.006), and lower FMD (7.26 ± 1.92 vs 8.23 ± 2.76%, p = 0.036). Also, they showed more endothelial dysfunction; however, this difference was statistically nonsignificant (97.7% vs 87.7%, p = 0.055). One hundred and thirty-six patients (90.7%) had endothelial dysfunction. They were older (57.51 ± 5.92 vs 50.86 ± 4.55 years, p value ≤ 0.001), more smokers (41.2% vs 14.3%, p = 0.04). Patients with normal endothelial function had a more myocardial blush grade (MBG) 3 (78.6% vs 26.5%, p value = 0.001) in comparison with more MBG 2 in those with endothelial dysfunction (41.9% vs 14.3%, p value = 0.001). Endothelial dysfunction patients had nonsignificant more no-reflow (31.6% vs 7.1%, p-value: 0.06). There was a significant weak positive correlation between thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow and FMD (r = 0.174, p = 0.033) and a significant moderate positive correlation between MBG and FMD (r = 0.366, p < 0.001). Patients with TIMI I flow had significantly lower FMD compared with patients with TIMI II and TIMI III flow post-PCI. FMD ≤ 6% could predict post-procedural TIMI I flow.

Conclusions: In STEMI patients who underwent PCI within 24 h after successful fibrinolysis, those who had no-reflow showed worse peripheral systemic endothelial function as they had lower brachial artery FMD. Also, FMD showed a significant positive correlation with the post-procedural angiographic flow (TIMI flow and MBG). FMD ≤ 6% could predict TIMI I flow.

Keywords: Coronary intervention; Endothelial dysfunction; Fibrinolysis; Flow-mediated dilatation; Myocardial blush grade; Myocardial infarction; No-reflow; TIMI flow.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Correlation between FMD and TIMI flow
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Correlation between FMD and MBG
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sitia S, Tomasoni L, Atzeni F, Ambrosio G, Cordiano C, Catapano A, et al. From endothelial dysfunction to atherosclerosis. Autoimmun Rev. 2010;9(12):830–834. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2010.07.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bhagat K. Endothelial function and myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Res. 1998;39(2):312–317. doi: 10.1016/s0008-6363(98)00138-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Matsuzawa Y, Lerman A. Endothelial dysfunction and coronary artery disease: assessment, prognosis, and treatment. Coron Artery Dis. 2014;25(8):713–724. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000178. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oikonomou E, Siasos G, Tsigkou V, Bletsa E, Panoilia ME, Oikonomou IN, et al. Coronary artery disease and endothelial dysfunction: novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Curr Med Chem. 2020;27(7):1052–1080. doi: 10.2174/0929867326666190830103219. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mayyas F, Al-Jarrah M, Ibrahim K, Mfady D, Van Wagoner DR. The significance of circulating endothelin-1 as a predictor of coronary artery disease status and clinical outcomes following coronary artery catheterization. Cardiovasc Pathol. 2015;24(1):19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.carpath.2014.08.004. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources