Comparing Evaluative Methods on Myocardial Reperfusion after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

王红,黄岚,晋军,宋耀明,耿召华,于学军,覃军,赵刚,高云华,刘政,杨莉

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-8812.2006.06.002

2006-01-01

Abstract:Objective To investigate the capacity of different methods on evaluation of myocardial reperfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention, including quantitative intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE), corrected TIMI frame count and coronary artery blood flow velocity. Methods Sixty-eight patients were divided into four groups: A, normal coronary artery; B, coronary artery stenosis 75%-95%; C, coronary artery stenosis 95%; D, coronary acute total occluded, according to the results of selective coronary angiography. Myocardial reperfusion levels were evaluated using the different methods mentioned above at 15 min after PCI. The quantitative parameters of MCE involved contrast peak intensity (A), time to peak intensity (TP) and area under the curve (AUC), representing myocardial blood volume, reperfusion velocity and myocardial blood flow respectively. Results The CTFC was not different between the coronary artery stenosis groups and the normal group. Coronary artery blood flow was slower in group D than that in group A while myocardial blood volume and myocardial blood flow of MCE quantitative parameters markedly decreased in group C than those in group A, and three MCE parameters in D group were significant difference compared with group A. Conclusion Quantitative intracoronary MCE was more accurate in the evaluation of myocardial reperfusion than the other two methods.