Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2024, Vol. 56 ›› Issue (1): 150-156. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2024.01.023

Previous Articles    

Index of microcirculatory resistance is associated with left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing emergency primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Fangfang WANG1,Fumeng LIANG2,Nan LI3,Xiaoxiao WANG3,Jiangli HAN1,*(),Lijun GUO1,*()   

  1. 1. Department of Cardiology and Institute of Vascular Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital; State Key Laboratory of Vascular Homeostasis and Remodeling, Peking University; NHC Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Molecular Biology and Regulatory Peptides, Peking University; Beijing Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Receptors Research, Beijing 100191, China
    2. Department of General Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beifang Branch, Beijing 100089, China
    3. Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2023-08-06 Online:2024-02-18 Published:2024-02-06
  • Contact: Jiangli HAN,Lijun GUO E-mail:dr_hanjiangli@126.com;guo_li_jun@sohu.com
  • Supported by:
    Capital Health Development Scientific Research Fund(2014-2-4093);Sunshine Cardiovascular Research Fund of Chinese Medical Doctor Association(SCRFCMDA201321)

RICH HTML

 2   

PDF (PC)

43

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate whether index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) is associated with left ventricular (LV) remodeling in acute anterior ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. The patients with first anterior STEMI who received PPCI from January 2014 to August 2017 in Peking University Third Hospital was enrolled. After PPCI, IMR was measured immediately by using pressure/temperature guidewire. The success rate of IMR measurement was 100%. Also we collected some related clinical data from the medical records and laboratory results. Infarct size [assessed as creatine kinase (CK) peak], echocardiography at baseline and 1 year follow-up were assessed. LV adverse remodeling (LVAR) was defined as ≥20% increase in LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV). Results: A total of forty-three patients were enrolled, with an average age of (58.7±12.4) years.The patients were divided into two groups as IMR ≤25 and IMR>25 by normal values recommended by previous literature. Compared with IMR ≤25 group, IMR>25 group had a higher percentage of initial thrombolysis in myocardial infraction (TIMI) grade 0 (95.7% vs. 65.0%, P=0.029), higher serum CK peak value [4 090 (383, 15 833)vs. 1 580 (396, 5 583), P=0.004]. The IMR>25 group suffered higher rates of ventricular aneurysm (30.4% vs. 5.0%, P=0.021). There was no difference in LVEDV [(111.0±18.8) mL vs. (115.0±23.6) mL, P=0.503] between the two groups 1 day after MI, but after 1 year, LVEDV in IMR>25 group was significantly higher than in IMR≤25 group [(141.5±33.7) mL vs. (115.9±27.9) mL, P=0.018]. The incidence of LVAR was more significant in IMR>25 group (47.4% vs. 11.8%, P=0.024). Binary Logistics regression showed that IMR [B=0.079, exp(B) (95%CI)=1.082 (1.018－1.149), P=0.011] and serum triglyceride level [B=1.610, exp(B) (95%CI)=5.005 (1.380－18.152), P=0.014] were the predictors of LVAR 1 year after MI. IMR had a good predictive value for LVAR 1 year after MI [area under the curve (AUC)=0.749, P=0.019], IMR>29 was a good cutoff value with sensitivity 81.8% and specificity 68.0%. Conclusion: Our study elaborates that immediate measurement of IMR after PPCI in patients with STEMI can reflect the microvascular function.And IMR could be used as a quantitative biomarker to predict LVAR after STEMI.

Key words: Acute myocardial infarction, Index of microcirculatory resistance, LV adverse remodeling, Triglyceride

CLC Number: 

  • R542.22

Table 1

The baseline characteristics in patients with IMR≤25 and IMR>25"

Parameters IMR ≤25 (n=20) IMR>25 (n=23) P value
Age/years, $\bar x \pm s$ 55.9±14.7 61.1±9.8 0.205
Male, n (%) 17 (85.0) 18 (78.3) 0.862
Hypertension, n (%) 6 (27.3) 9 (39.1) 0.324
Diabetes mellitus, n (%) 7 (35.0) 6 (26.1) 0.526
Dyslipidemia, n (%) 10 (50.0) 6 (26.1) 0.106
Current smoking, n (%) 15 (75.0) 16 (69.6) 0.692
WBC/(×109/L), $\bar x \pm s$ 11.20±3.89 11.00±4.22 0.584
Neut/%, M (min, max) 78.4 (64.9, 92.0) 82.8 (54.0, 90.4) 0.279
hs-CRP/(mg/L), M (min, max) 4.53 (2.18, 9.42) 4.02 (2.27, 7.74) 0.543
eGFR/(mL/min), $\bar x \pm s$ 93.6±22.1 81.8±20.6 0.079
Cholesterol/(mmol/L), $\bar x \pm s$ 4.80±0.86 4.80±1.38 0.995
LDL-C/(mmol/L), $\bar x \pm s$ 3.08±0.64 2.99±0.92 0.726
HDL-C/(mmol/L), M (min, max) 0.96 (0.61, 1.59) 0.96 (0.74, 1.45) 0.779
TG/(mmol/L), M (min, max) 1.33 (0.61, 4.68) 1.44 (0.65, 3.08) 0.706
Glu/(mmol/L), M (min, max) 5.6 (4.2, 18.1) 6.4 (4.5, 9.2) 0.886
HbA1C/%, M (min, max) 6.05 (5.00, 11.40) 5.70 (4.90, 7.90) 0.057
NT-proBNP/(ng/mL), M (min, max) 815 (20, 3 357) 1030 (70, 4 264) 0.762
Peak CK/(IU/L), M (min, max) 1 580 (396, 5 583) 4090 (383, 15 833) 0.004
Killip≥Ⅱ, n (%) 1 (5.0) 4 (17.4) 0.431

Table 2

Intervention-related results and discharge treatment in patients with IMR≤25 and IMR>25"

Parameters IMR ≤25(n=20) IMR>25(n=23) P value
Procedural characteristics
    TIMI flow grade 0(initial), n (%) 13 (65.0) 22 (95.7) 0.029
    Coronary infused tirofiban, n (%) 5 (25.0) 12 (52.2) 0.069
    Thrombus aspiration, n (%) 1 (5.0) 6 (26.1) 0.146
    TIMI flow grade 3 (final) proximal LAD, n (%) 20 (100.0) 20 (87.0) 0.491
    Multivessel disease, n (%) 14 (70.0) 13 (56.5) 0.270
    IMR, M (min, max) 17.90 (8.96, 23.31) 44.20 (25.08, 87.00) < 0.001
    CFR, M (min, max) 1.85 (0.70, 5.30) 1.30 (0.80, 2.30) 0.027
    FFR, M (min, max) 0.85 (0.72, 0.96) 0.87 (0.70, 1.03) 0.378
Discharge treatment
    ACE inhibitor, n (%) 11 (55.0) 10 (43.5) 0.887
    β-blocker, n (%) 10 (50.0) 11 (47.8) 0.451

Table 3

Echocardiography parameters in Patients with IMR≤25 and IMR>25 at baseline and 1 year follow-up"

Parameters IMR≤25 IMR>25 P
Baseline
    n 20 23
    LVEF/%, $\bar x \pm s$ 47.6±3.7 44.3±4.9 0.02
    Sm/(cm/s), $\bar x \pm s$ 7.2±0.8 9.6±2.4 0.01
    LVEDD/mm, $\bar x \pm s$ 49.2±4.4 48.5±3.6 0.54
    LVEDV/mL, $\bar x \pm s$ 115.0±23.6 111.0±18.8 0.503
    Ventricular aneurysm, n (%) 1 (5.0) 7 (30.4) 0.021
1 year follow-up
    n 17 19
    LVEF/%, $\bar x \pm s$ 57.0±9.0 50.0±7.0 0.01
    Sm/(cm/s), $\bar x \pm s$ 9.7±2.8 8.3±1.8 0.087
    LVEDD/mm, $\bar x \pm s$ 49.3±5.0 53.7±5.3 0.014
    LVEDV/mL, $\bar x \pm s$ 115.9±27.9 141.5±33.7 0.018
    ΔLVEF/%, $\bar x \pm s$ 10.0±9.0 6.0±8.0 0.16
    ΔLVEDV/%, $\bar x \pm s$ -2.0±21.0 27.0±29.0 0.001
    LVAR, n (%) 2 (11.8) 9 (47.4) 0.024

Figure 1

In both the IMR>25 and the IMR≤25 group, LVEF had recovered significantly at 1 year after MI compared with that found at baseline (A), and the two groups had similar changes in LVEF (ΔLVEF, B) ΔLVEF=LVEF1 year-LVEFbaseline. IMR, index of microcirculatory resistance; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction."

Figure 2

LVEDV in the IMR>25 group 1 year after MI was significantly larger than that at baseline (P=0.002), but there was no such change in the IMR≤25 group (P=0.566, A), was higher in the IMR≤25 group (P=0.001, B) ΔLVEDV=(LVEDV1 year-LVEDVbaseline)/ LVEDVbaseline. IMR, index of microcirculatory resistance; LVEDV, left ventricular end diastolic volume."

Figure 3

LVEDV in the IMR>25 group increased by more than 20% over baseline, which means the incidence of LVAR was higher than IMR≤25 group IMR, index of microcirculatory resistance; LVEDV, left ventricular end diastolic volume; LVAR, left ventricular adverse remodeling."

Figure 4

Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis showed that IMR had diagnostic value for LVAR IMR, index of microcirculatory resistance; LVAR, left ventricular adverse remodeling. Area under the curve (AUC)=0.749, 95% confidence interval: 0.578－0.920, P=0.019."

1 Klancik V , Pesl L , Neuberg M , et al. Long-term follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Eur Heart J Suppl, 2022, 24 (Suppl B): B16- B22.
2 Araszkiewicz A , Grajek S , Lesiak M , et al. Effect of impaired myocardial reperfusion on left ventricular remodeling in patients with anterior wall acute myocardial infarction treated with primary coronary intervention[J]. Am J Cardiol, 2006, 98 (6): 725- 728.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.04.009
3 杨洋, 李楠, 赖红梅, 等. 急性前壁ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者介入治疗前血清血管内皮生长因子与左心室重构的关联性研究[J]. 中国心血管病研究, 2021, 19 (9): 818- 823.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5301.2021.09.012
4 van der Bijl P , Abou R , Goedemans L , et al. Left ventricular post-infarct remodeling: Implications for systolic function improvement and outcomes in the modern era[J]. JACC Heart Fail, 2020, 8 (2): 131- 140.
doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.08.014
5 Ng MK , Yong AS , Ho M , et al. The index of microcirculatory resistance predicts myocardial infarction related to percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2012, 5 (4): 515- 522.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.969048
6 Yoon GS , Ahn SG , Woo SI , et al. The Index of Microcirculatory resistance after primary percutaneous coronary intervention predicts long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction[J]. J Clin Med, 2021, 10 (20): 4752.
doi: 10.3390/jcm10204752
7 Qi Y , Gu R , Xu J , et al. Index of microcirculatory resistance predicts long term cardiac systolic function in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI[J]. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2021, 21 (1): 66.
doi: 10.1186/s12872-021-01887-w
8 Fearon WF , Low AF , Yong AS , et al. Prognostic value of the index of microcirculatory resistance measured after primary percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Circulation, 2013, 127 (24): 2436- 2441.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000298
9 韩江莉, 何立芸, 崔鸣, 等. 急性心肌梗死直接冠状动脉介入治疗患者微循环阻力指数检测的可行性及临床价值探讨[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2017, 97 (29): 2261- 2265.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2017.29.006
10 Akasaka T , Yoshida K , Kawamoto T , et al. Relation of phasic coronary flow velocity characteristics with TIMI perfusion grade and myocardial recovery after primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and rescue stenting[J]. Circulation, 2000, 101 (20): 2361- 2367.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.101.20.2361
11 Ng MK , Yeung AC , Fearon WF . Invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation: Superior reproducibility and less hemodynamic dependence of index of microcirculatory resistance compared with coronary flow reserve[J]. Circulation, 2006, 113 (17): 2054- 2061.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.603522
12 Fearon WF , Balsam LB , Farouque HM , et al. Novel index for invasively assessing the coronary microcirculation[J]. Circulation, 2003, 107 (25): 3129- 3132.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000080700.98607.D1
13 Aarnoudse W , Fearon WF , Manoharan G , et al. Epicardial stenosis severity does not affect minimal microcirculatory resistance[J]. Circulation, 2004, 110 (15): 2137- 2142.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000143893.18451.0E
14 Berry C , Corcoran D , Hennigan B , et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided management in stable coronary disease and acute myocardial infarction: Recent developments[J]. Eur Heart J, 2015, 36 (45): 3155- 3164.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv206
15 van Kranenburg M , Magro M , Thiele H , et al. Prognostic value of microvascular obstruction and infarct size, as measured by CMR in STEMI patients[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging, 2014, 7 (9): 930- 939.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.05.010
16 Maznyczka AM , McCartney PJ , Oldroyd KG , et al. Risk stratification guided by the index of microcirculatory resistance and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in acute myocardial infarction[J]. Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2021, 14 (2): e009529.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009529
17 Lim HS , Yoon MH , Tahk SJ , et al. Usefulness of the index of microcirculatory resistance for invasively assessing myocardial viability immediately after primary angioplasty for anterior myocardial infarction[J]. Eur Heart J, 2009, 30 (23): 2854- 2860.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp313
18 Bolognese L , Neskovic AN , Parodi G , et al. Left ventricular remodeling after primary coronary angioplasty: Patterns of left ventricular dilation and long-term prognostic implications[J]. Circulation, 2002, 106 (18): 2351- 2357.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000036014.90197.FA
19 Shi K , Ma M , Yang MX , et al. Increased oxygenation is associated with myocardial inflammation and adverse regional remodeling after acute ST-segment elevation myocardial Infarction[J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31 (12): 8956- 8966.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08032-3
20 Luo E , Wang D , Yan G , et al. High triglyceride-glucose index is associated with poor prognosis in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention[J]. Cardiovasc Diabetol, 2019, 18 (1): 150.
doi: 10.1186/s12933-019-0957-3
21 Garg M , Khanna D , Kalra S , et al. Chronic oral administration of low-dose combination of fenofibrate and rosuvastatin protects the rat heart against experimentally induced acute myocardial infarction[J]. Fundam Clin Pharmacol, 2016, 30 (5): 394- 405.
doi: 10.1111/fcp.12204
22 Oidor-Chan VH , Hong E , Perez-Severiano F , et al. Fenofibrate plus metformin produces cardioprotection in a type 2 diabetes and acute myocardial infarction model[J]. PPAR Res, 2016, 2016, 8237264.
23 Niccoli G , Scalone G , Lerman A , et al. Coronary microvascular obstruction in acute myocardial infarction[J]. Eur Heart J, 2016, 37 (13): 1024- 1033.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv484
24 Ishida K , Geshi T , Nakano A , et al. Beneficial effects of statin treatment on coronary microvascular dysfunction and left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction[J]. Int J Cardiol, 2012, 155 (3): 442- 447.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.11.015
25 Węgiel M , Rakowski T . Circulating biomarkers as predictors of left ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction[J]. Adv interv cardiol, 2021, 17 (1): 21- 32.
[1] Qing GAO,Yu CHEN,Gang LIU,Sheng-long CHEN,Sui-xin DONG. Clinical results after surgical treatment for non-selective case with postinfarction ventricular septal rupture [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(6): 1103-1107.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd