李萌玫,邵一兵,张纯全,刘玉昊,武越,王旭

• 1:青岛大学附属青岛市市立医院心内科

摘要(Abstract)：

目的比较不同侧支循环患者冠状动脉完全闭塞病变择期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)术后冠状动脉微循环的差异及近期预后。方法选择2012年1月至2015年12月在青岛市市立医院心内科住院的非ST段抬高心肌梗死(NSTEMI)或者ST段抬高心肌梗死(STEMI)错过血运重建时间半月以上仍有症状的患者42例,根据Rentrop分级将所有患者分为侧支循环形成不良组(A组,Rentrop 0~1级,17例)和侧支循环形成良好组(B组,Rentrop 2~3级,25例)。PCI术后采用压力导丝测定冠状动脉(罪犯血管)的微循环阻力指数(IMR),PCI术后及术后3个月采用超声心动图测定左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDd)和左心室射血分数(LVEF)。结果 (1)A组患者IMR均值明显高于B组,差异有统计学意义(32.53±8.0比20.88±4.6,P<0.001);冠状动脉侧支循环分级与IMR呈负相关(r=-0.671,P<0.05)。(2)术后3个月LVEDd的变化值,A组平均为5.76 mm,B组平均为-0.28 mm,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。(3)术后3个月LVEF的变化值,A组平均为-3.82%,B组平均为5.36%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。(4)冠状动脉侧支循环分级与术后3个月LVEDd变化值呈负相关(r=-0.669,P<0.001),与术后3个月LVEF变化值呈正相关(r=0.657,P<0.001)。(5)IMR与术后3个月LVEDd变化值呈正相关(r=0.686,P<0.001),线性回归方程为:LVEDd变化值=0.366×IMR-7.213;IMR与术后3个月LVEF变化值呈负相关(r=-0.664,P<0.001),线性回归方程为:LVEF变化值=-0.554×IMR+15.812。结论侧支循环不良患者与侧支循环良好患者相比,更容易发生微循环功能受损,开通梗死区域相关血管,侧支循环良好、微循环功能良好的患者心功能恢复情况优于侧支循环不良、微循环功能受损的患者。

关键词(KeyWords)： 侧支循环;微循环;经皮冠状动脉介入治疗;心功能

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 李萌玫,邵一兵,张纯全,刘玉昊,武越,王旭

参考文献(References)：

• [1]Patel B,Fisher M.Therapeutic advances in myocardial microvascularresistance:unravelling the enigma.Pharmacol Ther,2010,127(2):131-147.
• [2]Chilian WM,Eastham CL,Marcus ML.Microvascular distribution of coronary vascular resistance in beating left ventricle.Am J Physiol,1986,251(Pt 2):H779-H788.
• [3]Niccoli G,Burzotta F,Galiuto L,et al.Myocardial no-reflow in humans.J Am Coll Cardiol,2009,54(4):281-292.
• [4]Vijayalakshmi K,De Belder MA.Angiographic and physiologic assessment of coronary flow and myocardial perfusion in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.Acute Card Care,2008,10(2):69-78.
• [5]Gibson CM,Cannon CP,Daley WL,et al.TIMI frame count:a quantitative method of assessing coronary artery flow.Circulation,1996,93(5):879-888.
• [6]Pijls NH,De Bruyne B,Smith L,et al.Coronary thermodilution to assess flow reserve:validation in humans.Circulation,2002,105(21):2482-2486.
• [7]Kern MJ.Coronary physiology revisited:practical insights from the cardiac catheterization laboratory.Circulation,2000,101(11):1344-1351.
• [8]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.Circulation,2006,113(17):2054-2061.
• [9]Seiler C.Assessment and impact of the human coronary collateral circulation on myocardial ischemia and outcome.Circ Cardiovasc Interv,2013,6(6):719-728.
• [10]Meier P,Hemingway H,Lansky AJ,et al.The impact of the coronary collateral circulation on mortality:a meta-analysis.Eur Heart J,2012,33(5):614-621.
• [11]Kim EK,Choi JH,Song YB.A protective role of early collateral blood flow in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Am Heart J,2016,171(1):56-63.
• [12]Crea F,Camici PG,Bairey Merz CN.Coronary microvasculardysfunction:an update.Eur Heart J,2014,35(17):1101-1111.
• [13]Ng MK,Yong AS,Ho M,et a I.The index of microcirculatory resistance predicts myocardial infarction related to percutaneous coronary intervention.Circ Cardiovasc Interv,2012,5(4):515-522.
• [14]Fearon WF,Low AF,Yong AS,et al.Prognostic value of the index of microcirculatory resistance measured after primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Circulation,2013,127(24):2436-2441.
• [15]Yoo SH,Yoo TK,Lim HS.Index of microcirculatory resistance as predictor for microvascular functional recovery inpatients with anterior myocardial infarction.J Korean Med Sci,2012,27(9):1044-1050.
• [16]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.Eur Heart J,2009,30(23):2854-2860.