Pulse Infusion Thrombolysis (PIT) for Large Intracoronary Thrombus
- 1 January 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Japanese Circulation Society in Japanese Circulation Journal
- Vol. 65 (2), 94-98
- https://doi.org/10.1253/jcj.65.94
Abstract
Because large thrombus is a limitation for revascularization in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the present study evaluated the effectiveness of pulse infusion thrombolysis (PIT) in patients with an AMI with a large (>15 mm) coronary thrombus, focusing on the occurrence of the 'no flow' phenomenon. The retrospective study compared patients treated before (1988-95; Group A, n=74) and after (1996-99; Group B, n=40) the use of PIT, using the following parameters: lesion success (<50% stenosis during 30-min observation), procedural success (lesion success plus TIMI grade 3 flow), procedural no flow (TIMI grade 0 flow during the procedure with 'back and forth movement' of contrast dye after lesion success), persistent no flow (consistent no flow without any flow improvement at the final visualization despite intensive treatment), reocclusion rate and in-hospital death. Group B was significantly better than Group A in procedural success (90% vs 66%; p=0.005), procedural 'no flow' (51% vs 15%; p<0.001), and persistent 'no flow' (34% vs 10%; p<0.05). Subgroup comparison was performed among the following groups: Direct-BA group (n=44): treated with mechanical angioplasty alone; ICT-BA group (n=40): treated with prior intracoronary thrombolysis and angioplasty; and PIT-BA group (n=30): treated with PIT and angioplasty. There were no differences in thrombus length and lesion success among these 3 groups. Procedural success was best achieved in PIT-BA: 97% vs 52% for Direct-BA (p=0.003) and 68% for ICT-BA (p=0.009). Procedural 'no flow' was least in PIT-BA: 50% vs 3.3% for Direct-BA (p=0.003) and 25% vs 3.3% for ICT-BA (p=0.042). Persistent 'no flow' was less frequent in PIT-BA than Direct-BA: 32% vs 3.3% (p=0.009). However, the difference between ICT-BA and Direct-BA was insignificant: 13% vs 3.3% (p=0.53). There were no differences in reocclusion rate and in-hospital death among the 3 subgroups. And there were no differences between Direct-BA and ICT-BA in any parameters. PIT was effective in preventing 'no flow' in the mechanical revasculalization for AMI especially those cases with a large thrombus.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Inhibition of Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa with Eptifibatide in Patients with Acute Coronary SyndromesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1998
- In-Hospital and Late Results of Coronary Stents Versus Conventional Balloon Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction (GRAMI trial)The American Journal of Cardiology, 1998
- Disappearance of the `No-Reflow' Phenomenon After Adjunctive Intracoronary Administration of Nicorandil in a Patient With Acute Myocardial InfarctionJapanese Circulation Journal, 1997
- Incidence and Importance of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Grade 3 Flow After Primary Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial InfarctionThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1996
- Clinical Implications of the ‘No Reflow’ PhenomenonJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1996
- Incidence and treatment of 'no-reflow' after percutaneous coronary intervention.Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1994
- A Comparison of Immediate Angioplasty with Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial InfarctionThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1993
- Lack of myocardial perfusion immediately after successful thrombolysis. A predictor of poor recovery of left ventricular function in anterior myocardial infarction.Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 1992
- Angioscopic Evaluation of Coronary-Artery Thrombi in Acute Coronary SyndromesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1992
- Accelerated Thrombolysis In Vitro Evaluation of Agents and Methods of AdministrationInvestigative Radiology, 1985