Intravenous versus intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography for evaluation of no-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Jong Min Song, Jae Hwan Lee, Young Hak Kim, Duk Hyun Kang, Jae Kwan Song, Myeong Ki Hong, Seong Wook Park, Seung Jung Park, You Ho Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: We sought to compare intravenous myocardial contrast echocardiography (IV-MCE) with intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography (IC-MCE) in detecting no-reflow and predicting the short-term outcome of left ventricular function after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: IC-MCE and IV-MCE were performed immediately after PCI (D1) of 28 patients with anterior wall AMI. IV-MCE was repeated at the next day of PCI (D2), and left ventricular systolic function was evaluated at D2 and 30 days later (D30). Results: There was good agreement between IC-MCE and IV-MCE at D1 in determining no-reflow (κ= 0.78, P < 0.001) as well as between IV-MCE at D1 and D2 (κ= 0.93, P < 0.001). The patients with no-reflow on IC-MCE (n = 13) and those on IV-MCE at D2 (n = 11) showed no improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after 1 month (49 ± 9% to 48 ± 7%, P = 0.55, and 51 ± 6% to 49 ± 7%, P = 0.20). However, the patients with reflow on IC-MCE (n = 15) and those on IV-MCE at D2 (n = 17) demonstrated significant improvement in LVEF (55 ± 6% to 62 ± 5%, P < 0.005, and 53 ± 7% to 60 ± 8%, P < 0.005). In predicting segmental functional recovery after 1 month, sensitivity and specificity of IC-MCE were 85% and 67%, respectively, and those of IV-MCE at D2 were 95% and 40%, respectively. Conclusion: IV-MCE at D2 might be substituted for IC-MCE performed immediately after PCI for the evaluation of no-reflow and prediction of left ventricular systolic function after 1 month in patients with anterior wall AMI.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)818-825
Number of pages8
JournalEchocardiography
Volume22
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005 Nov 1

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Echocardiography
Left Ventricular Function
Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction
Stroke Volume

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Song, Jong Min ; Lee, Jae Hwan ; Kim, Young Hak ; Kang, Duk Hyun ; Song, Jae Kwan ; Hong, Myeong Ki ; Park, Seong Wook ; Park, Seung Jung ; Kim, You Ho. / Intravenous versus intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography for evaluation of no-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. In: Echocardiography. 2005 ; Vol. 22, No. 10. pp. 818-825.
@article{f88442fa059348aa9c7497d78d937b7e,
title = "Intravenous versus intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography for evaluation of no-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention",
abstract = "Objective: We sought to compare intravenous myocardial contrast echocardiography (IV-MCE) with intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography (IC-MCE) in detecting no-reflow and predicting the short-term outcome of left ventricular function after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: IC-MCE and IV-MCE were performed immediately after PCI (D1) of 28 patients with anterior wall AMI. IV-MCE was repeated at the next day of PCI (D2), and left ventricular systolic function was evaluated at D2 and 30 days later (D30). Results: There was good agreement between IC-MCE and IV-MCE at D1 in determining no-reflow (κ= 0.78, P < 0.001) as well as between IV-MCE at D1 and D2 (κ= 0.93, P < 0.001). The patients with no-reflow on IC-MCE (n = 13) and those on IV-MCE at D2 (n = 11) showed no improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after 1 month (49 ± 9{\%} to 48 ± 7{\%}, P = 0.55, and 51 ± 6{\%} to 49 ± 7{\%}, P = 0.20). However, the patients with reflow on IC-MCE (n = 15) and those on IV-MCE at D2 (n = 17) demonstrated significant improvement in LVEF (55 ± 6{\%} to 62 ± 5{\%}, P < 0.005, and 53 ± 7{\%} to 60 ± 8{\%}, P < 0.005). In predicting segmental functional recovery after 1 month, sensitivity and specificity of IC-MCE were 85{\%} and 67{\%}, respectively, and those of IV-MCE at D2 were 95{\%} and 40{\%}, respectively. Conclusion: IV-MCE at D2 might be substituted for IC-MCE performed immediately after PCI for the evaluation of no-reflow and prediction of left ventricular systolic function after 1 month in patients with anterior wall AMI.",
author = "Song, {Jong Min} and Lee, {Jae Hwan} and Kim, {Young Hak} and Kang, {Duk Hyun} and Song, {Jae Kwan} and Hong, {Myeong Ki} and Park, {Seong Wook} and Park, {Seung Jung} and Kim, {You Ho}",
year = "2005",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1540-8175.2005.00125.x",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "818--825",
journal = "Echocardiography",
issn = "0742-2822",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

Intravenous versus intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography for evaluation of no-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. / Song, Jong Min; Lee, Jae Hwan; Kim, Young Hak; Kang, Duk Hyun; Song, Jae Kwan; Hong, Myeong Ki; Park, Seong Wook; Park, Seung Jung; Kim, You Ho.

In: Echocardiography, Vol. 22, No. 10, 01.11.2005, p. 818-825.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intravenous versus intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography for evaluation of no-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention

AU - Song, Jong Min

AU - Lee, Jae Hwan

AU - Kim, Young Hak

AU - Kang, Duk Hyun

AU - Song, Jae Kwan

AU - Hong, Myeong Ki

AU - Park, Seong Wook

AU - Park, Seung Jung

AU - Kim, You Ho

PY - 2005/11/1

Y1 - 2005/11/1

N2 - Objective: We sought to compare intravenous myocardial contrast echocardiography (IV-MCE) with intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography (IC-MCE) in detecting no-reflow and predicting the short-term outcome of left ventricular function after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: IC-MCE and IV-MCE were performed immediately after PCI (D1) of 28 patients with anterior wall AMI. IV-MCE was repeated at the next day of PCI (D2), and left ventricular systolic function was evaluated at D2 and 30 days later (D30). Results: There was good agreement between IC-MCE and IV-MCE at D1 in determining no-reflow (κ= 0.78, P < 0.001) as well as between IV-MCE at D1 and D2 (κ= 0.93, P < 0.001). The patients with no-reflow on IC-MCE (n = 13) and those on IV-MCE at D2 (n = 11) showed no improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after 1 month (49 ± 9% to 48 ± 7%, P = 0.55, and 51 ± 6% to 49 ± 7%, P = 0.20). However, the patients with reflow on IC-MCE (n = 15) and those on IV-MCE at D2 (n = 17) demonstrated significant improvement in LVEF (55 ± 6% to 62 ± 5%, P < 0.005, and 53 ± 7% to 60 ± 8%, P < 0.005). In predicting segmental functional recovery after 1 month, sensitivity and specificity of IC-MCE were 85% and 67%, respectively, and those of IV-MCE at D2 were 95% and 40%, respectively. Conclusion: IV-MCE at D2 might be substituted for IC-MCE performed immediately after PCI for the evaluation of no-reflow and prediction of left ventricular systolic function after 1 month in patients with anterior wall AMI.

AB - Objective: We sought to compare intravenous myocardial contrast echocardiography (IV-MCE) with intracoronary myocardial contrast echocardiography (IC-MCE) in detecting no-reflow and predicting the short-term outcome of left ventricular function after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: IC-MCE and IV-MCE were performed immediately after PCI (D1) of 28 patients with anterior wall AMI. IV-MCE was repeated at the next day of PCI (D2), and left ventricular systolic function was evaluated at D2 and 30 days later (D30). Results: There was good agreement between IC-MCE and IV-MCE at D1 in determining no-reflow (κ= 0.78, P < 0.001) as well as between IV-MCE at D1 and D2 (κ= 0.93, P < 0.001). The patients with no-reflow on IC-MCE (n = 13) and those on IV-MCE at D2 (n = 11) showed no improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after 1 month (49 ± 9% to 48 ± 7%, P = 0.55, and 51 ± 6% to 49 ± 7%, P = 0.20). However, the patients with reflow on IC-MCE (n = 15) and those on IV-MCE at D2 (n = 17) demonstrated significant improvement in LVEF (55 ± 6% to 62 ± 5%, P < 0.005, and 53 ± 7% to 60 ± 8%, P < 0.005). In predicting segmental functional recovery after 1 month, sensitivity and specificity of IC-MCE were 85% and 67%, respectively, and those of IV-MCE at D2 were 95% and 40%, respectively. Conclusion: IV-MCE at D2 might be substituted for IC-MCE performed immediately after PCI for the evaluation of no-reflow and prediction of left ventricular systolic function after 1 month in patients with anterior wall AMI.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646264085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646264085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-8175.2005.00125.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1540-8175.2005.00125.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 16343164

AN - SCOPUS:33646264085

VL - 22

SP - 818

EP - 825

JO - Echocardiography

JF - Echocardiography

SN - 0742-2822

IS - 10

ER -