Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 305
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
Previous article Browse articles Next article 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
J Res Med Sci 2020,  25:107

Association of coronary artery dominance and mortality rate and complications in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention


1 Department of Cardiology, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
2 Cardiovascular Intervention Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
4 Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Date of Submission09-Sep-2019
Date of Decision29-Apr-2020
Date of Acceptance25-Nov-2020
Date of Web Publication26-Nov-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Alireza Abdi-Ardekani
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Zand Street, Shiraz 71344-1864
Iran
Dr. Armin Attar
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Zand Street, Shiraz 71344-1864
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_414_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Effect of coronary artery dominance on the patients' outcome following primary PCI (PPCI) is not fully investigated. We investigated the association of coronary artery dominance with complications and 1-year mortality rate of PPCI. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, patients with STEMI treated with PPCI from March 2016 to February 2018 were divided into three groups based on their coronary dominancy: left dominance (LD), right dominance (RD), and codominant. Demographic characteristics, medical history, results of physical examination, electrocardiography, angiography, and echocardiography were compared between the groups. Results: Of 491 patients included in this study, 34 patients (7%) were LD and 22 patients (4.5%) were codominant. Accordingly, 54 propensity-matched RD patients were included in the analysis. The demographics and comorbidities of the three groups were not different (P > 0.05); however, all patients in the RD group had thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3, while five patients in the LD and five patients in the codominant group had a TIMI ≤2 (P = 0.006). At admission, the median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was highest in RD patients and lowest in LD and codominant patients (34%, P = 0.009). There was no difference in terms of success or complications of PCI, in-hospital, and 1-year mortality rate (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Patients with left coronary artery dominance had a higher value of indicators of worse outcomes, such as lower LVEF and TIMI ≤ 2, compared with RD patients, but not different rates of success or complications of PCI, in-hospital, and 1-year mortality. This finding may suggest that interventionists should prepare themselves with protective measures for no-reflow and slow-flow phenomenon and also mechanical circulatory support before performing PPCI in LD patients.

Keywords: Coronary circulation, coronary vessels, percutaneous coronary intervention, ST- segment elevation myocardial infarction


How to cite this article:
Mikaeilvand A, Firuozi A, Basiri H, Varghaei A, Izadpanah P, Kojuri J, Abdi-Ardekani A, Attar A. Association of coronary artery dominance and mortality rate and complications in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Res Med Sci 2020;25:107

How to cite this URL:
Mikaeilvand A, Firuozi A, Basiri H, Varghaei A, Izadpanah P, Kojuri J, Abdi-Ardekani A, Attar A. Association of coronary artery dominance and mortality rate and complications in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Res Med Sci [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 11];25:107. Available from: https://www.jmsjournal.net/text.asp?2020/25/1/107/301549




  Introduction Top


Coronary heart disease (CHD), including coronary artery disease (CAD) and myocardial infarction (MI), is the leading cause of death worldwide.[1] According to the 2016 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics update of the American Heart Association, 15.5 million people ≥20 years of age in the USA have had CHD, causing MI in one American every 42 s.[2] Recent advances in medical technology improved prognosis of patients with MI significantly;[3] however, patients with acute MI (AMI) have a 3-fold increased 1–3-year and 3–5-year mortality rate.[4]

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice, especially for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI),[5] which has significantly decreased the global 1-year case-fatality rate in the STEMI population.[6] However, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may be associated with periprocedural complications and death.[7],[8] Accordingly, research has focused on risk factors of 1-year mortality, suggesting that age, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), Killip class, heart rate, diabetes mellitus (DM), ischemia time, and anterior STEMI, or left bundle branch block, or/and 3-vessel CAD are the significant factors.[9],[10]

Coronary artery dominance influences the amount and anatomic location of myocardium perfused by the left or right coronary circulation.[11],[12] There are three types of coronary artery dominance: right, left, and balanced. Right dominance (RD), the most common type (about 70%–80%), refers to the origination of the arteries supplying the posterior interventricular septum from posterior descending artery and posterior lateral right coronary artery (RCA); left dominance (LD) refers to the origination of the arteries supplying the posterior interventricular septum from left circumflex artery (LCX), observed in about 8%–13% of cases; and codominance or balanced dominance refers to its origination from both from the RCA and LCX, observed in about 4%–18% of cases.[13] Coronary artery dominance is associated with the extent of CAD,[14],[15] with incidence and all-cause mortality of AMI,[15],[16] but not with atherosclerotic involvement.[17] Research has suggested difference in post-PCI outcome and mortality of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI based on their coronary artery dominance.[18],[19],[20] Coronary artery dominance is also associated with 30-day mortality and early reinfarction after STEMI.[21] Recent evidence also suggests worse clinical outcomes following PCI in LD patients with STEMI. Only few studies have addressed the association of coronary dominance with patient's outcomes following PCI.[12],[22],[23] According to the significance of this issue, we aimed to investigate a wide range of clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters to study the effect of coronary artery dominance on post-PCI outcome, 1-year follow-up, and mortality rate in patients with STEMI.


  Materials and Methods Top


Study population

In this retrospective cross-sectional study, data from all the patients admitted with the diagnosis of STEMI undergoing PPCI from March 2016 to February 2018 at Rajaie Heart Center and Nemazee Hospital were gathered. From them, data of all LD or codominant patients were included. A sample of propensity-matched RD population was also included. The PPCIs were done by different interventions. The patients in the LD or codominant groups were included into the study by convenient sampling method, while the patients in the RD group were randomly included into the study using random permuted blocks.

Ethical consideration

The protocol of the study was approved by the local ethics committee, and all principles of the latest version of Helsinki's Declaration on human studies were met throughout the study. The ethical approval number is IR.SUMS.MED.REC.1396.S256.

Data extraction

All information was extracted from the patients' medical records. First, the coronary dominancy of patients was determined and the study samples were divided into three groups based on their coronary dominancy. Then, the demographics (age and sex), presence of symptoms (chest pain, dyspnea, pain site, and radiation), history of cardiopulmonary resuscitation before admission, history of MI, CAD, hypertension, DM, hyperlipidemia, smoking, and history of PCI and/or CABG were extracted from the patients' medical records. Further, the results of physical examination (jugular vein pressure measurement, cardiac auscultation, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and pulse rate), results of laboratory tests including serum parameters, electrocardiography (EKG), angiography, and echocardiography, date of discharge, readmission, revascularization, and death were recorded and compared among the groups. The patients who had no record of readmission were contacted by telephone to ask if they had been admitted to other centers during this period.

PPCI was performed by an expert interventional cardiologist using Artis Zee Siemens (Siemens Health Care Co, Germany) by the conventionally approved procedures, and PCI success was defined as acquiring a thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) flow 3.

Statistical analysis

First, the normal distribution of data was tested by Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, which indicated that data were normally distributed and which were not. Therefore, the results of quantitative variables were presented by mean ± standard deviation (in cases with normal distribution) and by median and interquartile range. Data were compared by one-way ANOVA among the three groups of coronary artery dominance or by Mann–Whitney between patients with and without complication. The results of nominal or ordinal variables were reported by frequency (percentage) and compared using Chi-square test. Echocardiographic procedural complications were reported by incidence index. Change in variables over time was tested by Friedman test. For the statistical analysis, the statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 21.0 (IBM Corp., 2018. Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.) was used. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


  Results Top


Patients

Of 491 patients included in this study, 34 patients (7%) were LD and 22 patients (4.5%) were codominant. Accordingly, 54 propensity-matched RD patients were randomly included in analysis to be comparable with other groups. Comparison of demographics among the three groups showed no difference in the mean age, sex distribution, frequency of symptoms, physical examination, and medical history of patients, as shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Comparison of demographics and medical history among three groups of patients with different coronary artery dominancy

Click here to view


Comparison of laboratory work-ups

Comparing the results of serum parameters showed statistically significant difference among the groups, only in fasting blood sugar (FBS), cardiac troponin-I (cTnI), and creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) in LD patients (P < 0.001). Median FBS was 130.48 mg/dL in RD patients, 181.24 mg/dL in LD patients, and 116.47 mg/dL in codominant patients; the median cTnI was 3.15, 12.08, and 5.40 ng/mL, respectively; and CK-MB was 63.38, 195.79, and 87.16 U/L, respectively. However, other serum parameters including hemoglobin, white blood cells, platelet, C-reactive protein, creatinine, sodium, potassium, and cholesterol (total, low-density, and high-density lipoprotein) were not statistically different among the groups [Table 2].
Table 2: Comparison of median values of serum parameters among three groups of patients with different coronary artery dominancy

Click here to view


Comparison of clinical work-ups

The results of EKG, echocardiography, and coronary angiography were compared among the three groups with different coronary artery dominance. As shown in [Table 2], the results showed significant difference in the frequency of ST elevation, lower ST elevation of II and III leads in LD patients, and higher ST elevation in avF and right precordial leads in RD patients (P < 0.05). However, echocardiographic parameters were not different among the groups [Table 3], and significant difference was observed only in the value of ejection fraction (EF) at admission, which was significantly higher in RD group (34% vs. 40.3% in LD group and 33.8% in codominant group, P = 0.009). Comparing the results of coronary angiography also showed higher frequency of RCA involvement of > 90% in RD patients and higher frequency of RCA involvement of 70%–90% in co-dominant group [Table 3].
Table 3: Comparing the results of electrocardiography, echocardiography, and coronary angiography among the three groups with different coronary artery dominance

Click here to view


The results of PPCI showed no significant difference among the groups, as shown in [Table 4] (P < 0.05); only, the frequency of TIMI flow 3 was significantly different among the groups (P < 0.05).
Table 4: Comparison of the results of primary percutaneous intervention among three groups of patients with different coronary artery dominancy

Click here to view


Comparing the data of the primary admission showed no significant difference among the groups in any parameters, such as death rate, cause of death, and time to death as well as the amount of stent restenosis, need for revascularization, and the prescribed drugs (P > 0.05) [Table 5]. Clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up were not different according to the patients' coronary artery dominance [Table 5].
Table 5: Comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients among three groups with different coronary artery dominancy in their first admission

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The results of comparing a wide range of clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters between three groups (54 RD patients, 34 LD, and 22 codominant patients) with similar demographics and clinical/parameters showed the differences among them.

Of serum parameters, the median cTnI and CK-MB were significantly different, and the highest values were observed in LD group (12.08 ng/mL and 195.79 U/L, respectively), while the lowest values were observed in RD group (3.15 ng/mL and 63.38 U/L, respectively), and intermediate values were observed in codominant patients (5.40 ng/mL, and 87.16 U/L, respectively). Although, in this study, all the patients had a confirmed diagnosis of STEMI and were scheduled for PCI, the serum markers of ischemia were different according to coronary artery dominance. As these parameters have been suggested as important predictors of patients' outcomes following PCI,[24] the significant difference in the serum values of cTnI and CK-MB among patients with different coronary artery dominance is of great significance and suggests worse outcomes following PCI in LD patients. Furthermore, patients' LVEF at admission (before PPCI) was also different and was highest in RD patients (40%) and lowest in LD and co-dominant patients (34%), which also implies worse patients' outcomes in LD patients, compared with RD patients. Previous studies have stated that LVEF was an important predictor of worse clinical outcome in LD patients; however, they have also referred to a higher mortality rate in LD patients.[21],[25],[26] However, in the present study, the results of the PPCI and 1-year follow-up were not significantly different among the groups. This discrepancy could be related to several factors, including differences in demographics of patients (such as age and sex distribution) and cardiac characteristics of MI in the patients. As shown in the results of this study, EKG assessment showed differences in the ST elevation of different cardiac leads and the results of echocardiography also showed some differences in the percentage of involvement of arteries such as RCA, which could affect the patients' outcomes. Another factor for lack of significant difference in death rates, cause of death, and time to death in our study could be because of the small number of patients who died during our study period, as there were only five patients in total with in-hospital death and only one with death during the 1-year follow-up.

Several parameters were investigated in the present study for the assessment of patients' outcomes following PCI. Most importantly, parameters related to the PPCI were investigated, and the results showed that PCI success and complications were not different among the groups with different coronary dominance. The only PCI parameter with significant difference among the groups was TIMI 3, as all the RD patients had TIMI 3, while 29 LD patients had TIMI 3 (four had TIMI 2 and one had TIMI 1); in codominant group, 16 had TIMI 3 and five had TIMI 2. TIMI can show the myocardial perfusion[27] and is an important prognostic value and patients' risk.[28] Patients with TIMI 3 are suggested to have a better in-hospital mortality rate, LVEF, prehospital fibrinolytic therapy, cardiogenic shock, and use of intra-aortic balloon pump compared with patients with TIMI ≤2.[29],[30] In the present study, all RD patients had TIMI 3, while a number of LD and codominant patients had TIMI ≤2, which implies better outcome in RD patients. Achieving TIMI 3 is one of the main goals of PCI, failure to achieve TIMI 3 is suggested as a predictor of mortality after PPCI,[31] and association of TIMI scores with coronary artery dominance in the present study shows the significance of coronary artery dominance in patients' outcomes.

A closer look into the literature shows that only few studies have addressed the association of coronary dominance with patient's outcomes following PCI, and the results of these studies are also controversial. Parikh et al. showed significantly worse in-hospital mortality rate in LD patients undergoing PCI because of ACS.[19] Goldberg et al. also indicated LD as a significant and independent predictor of worse long-term mortality in patients with ACS.[32] Considering patients with STEMI, Veltman et al. studied 1131 patients with acute STEMI treated with PPCI and showed that LD patients had a worse 30-day mortality rate, compared with RD patients, but similar mortality rate after 30 days.[21] However, the study by Abu-Assi et al. showed a higher risk of death and reinfarction in LD patients, compared with RD patients.[26] The worse patients' outcomes in these studies are suggested to be because of the lager caliber of circumflex artery and the higher risk of mortality in patients with occlusion of the proximal circumflex artery.[33] In our study, although TIMI and LVEF were different among the patients with different coronary dominance, which implied worse outcomes in LD patients, we did not find any difference in the in-hospital or 1-year mortality rate. Similar to our results, Lam et al. also reported no association between coronary dominance and mortality rate, treatment failure, or major adverse cardiac events; however, they indicated different periprocedural MIs.[25]

There were also some findings in the results of the present study that we could not justify. One of the these serum parameters with significant difference among the groups was FBS, with highest in the LD patients followed by the RD patients and lowest in the codominant patients (181.24, 130.48, and 116.47 mg/dL, respectively). This difference should be a random finding and diabetes is not supposed to be related to coronary artery dominance. However, it was notable that the median FBS value was high in all the groups, although only 14, 11, and 4 patients had a positive history of diabetes. This finding confirms the results of previous studies on the association of diabetes with occurrence of STEMI and the infarct size.[34] It also confirms that most Iranian patients are unaware of their diabetes,[35] which is of greater significance in patients with CVD.

The present study included a wide range of variables and reported in-hospital and 1-year complications and mortality rate of patients with STEMI following PCI. However, this study could have some limitations. The first limitation is related to the retrospective nature of the study, which increased the risk of bias in the recorded data. To address this limitation, we confirmed the recorded data by calling the patients through telephone. The second limitation of this study was related to the wide range of parameters that can affect the patients' outcomes following PCI, such as age and cardiac characteristics, which could not be controlled in this study, although demographic characteristics of the patients were similar among the study groups. Furthermore, we had no tool to assess the infarct size which is very important prognostic factor, and many of our findings can be explained with this parameter.[32]


  Conclusion Top


Coronary artery dominance influences the myocardial perfusion, and the results of the present study showed that patients with LD and codominant coronary arteries had a higher frequency of TIMI ≤ 2, compared with RD patients, which confirms better perfusion in the RD patients. Further, this group of patients (RD) had a higher LVEF, compared with patients with LD and codominant coronary arteries. However, studying PCI parameters showed indifferent rates of success or complications of PCI and no difference in terms of in-hospital and 1-year mortality. These results could be because of the effect of confounders or small sample size. Furthermore, there are very few studies addressing this issue, which have reported dissimilar results. This finding may suggest that interventionists should prepare themselves with protective measures for no-reflow and slow-flow phenomenon and also mechanical circulatory support before performing PPCI in LD patients. Accordingly, we suggest that further studies investigate the effect of coronary artery dominance and patients' outcomes following PCI, especially in patients with STEMI.

Acknowledgments

The authors of the present study sincerely thank Dr. Mohammad Pourmontaseri for his contribution in the preparation of this manuscript. The ethical approval number is IR.SUMS.MED.REC.1396.S256.

Financial support and sponsorship

The present study was financially supported by two grants; one from Rajaei Heart Hospital and the other (Grant No. 95-01-01-13421) from Vice Chancellery for Research Affairs, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Sanchis-Gomar F, Perez-Quilis C, Leischik R, Lucia A. Epidemiology of coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome. Ann Transl Med 2016;4:256.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Writing Group Members, Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, et al. Executive summary: Heart disease and stroke statistics-2016 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2016;133:447-54.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Reed GW, Rossi JE, Cannon CP. Acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 2017;389:197-210.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Johansson S, Rosengren A, Young K, Jennings E. Mortality and morbidity trends after the first year in survivors of acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2017;17:53.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Cho YK, Nam CW. Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease: A focus on physiology. Korean J Intern Med 2018;33:851-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Kawecki D, Morawiec B, Gąsior M, Wilczek K, Nowalany-Kozielska E, Gierlotka M. Annual trends in total ischemic time and one-year fatalities: The paradox of STEMI network performance assessment. J Clin Med 2019;8:78.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Aggarwal B, Ellis SG, Lincoff AM, Kapadia SR, Cacchione J, Raymond RE, et al. Cause of death within 30 days of percutaneous coronary intervention in an era of mandatory outcome reporting. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:409-15.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Carrozza JP, Levin T. Periprocedural Complications of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; 2017.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Addala S, Grines CL, Dixon SR, Stone GW, Boura JA, Ochoa AB, et al. Predicting mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PAMI risk score). Am J Cardiol 2004;93:629-32.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Mehta RH, O'neill WW, Harjai KJ, Cox DA, Brodie BR, Boura J, et al. Prediction of one-year mortality among 30-day survivors after primary percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:817-22.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Sakamoto S, Takahashi S, Coskun AU, Papafaklis MI, Takahashi A, Saito S, et al. Relation of distribution of coronary blood flow volume to coronary artery dominance. Am J Cardiol 2013;111:1420-4.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Attar A, Mehrzadeh A, Foulad M, Aldavood D, Fallahzadeh MA, Assadian Rad M, et al. Accuracy of exercise tolerance test in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in patients with left dominant coronary circulation. Indian Heart J 2017;69:624-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Villa AD, Sammut E, Nair A, Rajani R, Bonamini R, Chiribiri A. Coronary artery anomalies overview: The normal and the abnormal. World J Radiol 2016;8:537-55.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Vasheghani-Farahani A, Kassaian SE, Yaminisharif A, Davoodi G, Salarifar M, Amirzadegan A, et al. The association between coronary arterial dominancy and extent of coronary artery disease in angiography and paraclinical studies. Clin Anat 2008;21:519-23.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Veltman CE, de Graaf FR, Schuijf JD, van Werkhoven JM, Jukema JW, Kaufmann PA, et al. Prognostic value of coronary vessel dominance in relation to significant coronary artery disease determined with non-invasive computed tomography coronary angiography. Eur Heart J 2012;33:1367-77.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Wang L, Li J, Gao Y, Li R, Zhang J, Su D, et al. Association between coronary dominance and acute inferior myocardial infarction: A matched, case-control study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2019;19:35.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Ghaffari S, Kazemi B, Dadashzadeh J, Sepehri B. The relation between left coronary dominancy and atheroscleroticinvolvement of left anterior descending artery origin. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res 2013;5:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Kuno T, Numasawa Y, Miyata H, Takahashi T, Sueyoshi K, Ohki T, et al. Impact of coronary dominance on in-hospital outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome. PLoS One 2013;8:e72672.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Parikh NI, Honeycutt EF, Roe MT, Neely M, Rosenthal EJ, Mittleman MA, et al. Left and codominant coronary artery circulations are associated with higher in-hospital mortality among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes: Report From the National Cardiovascular Database Cath Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CathPCI) Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012;5:775-82.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Khan AR, Khan Luni F, Bavishi C, Khan S, Eltahawy EA. Left dominant circulation increases mortality in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies involving 255,718 patients. Catheterizat Cardiovascul Interv 2016;88:201-8.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Veltman CE, van der Hoeven BL, Hoogslag GE, Boden H, Kharbanda RK, de Graaf MA, et al. Influence of coronary vessel dominance on short- and long-term outcome in patients after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2015;36:1023-30.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Attar A, Khosravi Maharlooi M, Khoshkhou S, Hosseini A, Jaberipour M, Dehghan A, et al. Colony forming unit endothelial cells do not exhibit telomerase alternative splicing variants and activity. Iran Biomed J 2013;17:146-51.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Attar A, Sadeghi AA, Amirmoezi F, Aghasadeghi K. Low dose spironolactone monotherapy in the management of stage I essential hypertension: A pilot randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Acta Cardiol Sin 2018;34:59-65.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Feldman DN, Minutello RM, Bergman G, Moussa I, Wong SC. Relation of troponin I levels following nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention to short- and long-term outcomes. Am J Cardiol 2009;104:1210-5.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Lam MK, Tandjung K, Sen H, Basalus MW, van Houwelingen KG, Stoel MG, et al. Coronary artery dominance and the risk of adverse clinical events following percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the prospective, randomised TWENTE trial. EuroIntervention 2015;11:180-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Abu-Assi E, Castiñeira-Busto M, González-Salvado V, Raposeiras-Roubin S, Riziq-Yousef Abumuaileq R, Peña-Gil C, et al. Coronary artery dominance and long-term prognosis in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2016;69:19-27.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Ding S, Pu J, Qiao ZQ, Shan P, Song W, Du Y, et al. TIMI myocardial perfusion frame count: A new method to assess myocardial perfusion and its predictive value for short-term prognosis. Catheterizat Cardiovascul Interv 2010;75:722-32.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Correia LC, Garcia G, Kalil F, Ferreira F, Carvalhal M, Oliveira R, et al. Prognostic value of TIMI score versus GRACE score in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Arq Bras Cardiol 2014;103:98-106.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Kammler J, Kypta A, Hofmann R, Kerschner K, Grund M, Sihorsch K, et al. TIMI 3 flow after primary angioplasty is an important predictor for outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Clin Res Cardiol 2009;98:165-70.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Zeymer U, Huber K, Fu Y, Ross A, Granger C, Goldstein P, et al. Impact of TIMI 3 patency before primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction on clinical outcome: Results from the ASSENT-4 PCI study. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2012;1:136-42.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Caixeta A, Lansky AJ, Mehran R, Brener SJ, Claessen B, Généreux P, et al. Predictors of suboptimal TIMI flow after primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: Results from the HORIZONS-AMI trial. EuroIntervention 2013;9:220-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Goldberg A, Southern DA, Galbraith PD, Traboulsi M, Knudtson ML, Ghali WA, et al. Coronary dominance and prognosis of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart J 2007;154:1116-22.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Ilia R, Cafri C, Weinstein JM, Gueron M. Acute myocardial infarction due to occlusion of the dominant left circumflex artery proximally. Am J Cardiol 2003;92:54-5.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Lønborg J, Vejlstrup N, Kelbæk H, Nepper-Christensen L, Jørgensen E, Helqvist S, et al. Impact of acute hyperglycemia on myocardial infarct size, area at risk, and salvage in patients with STEMI and the association with exenatide treatment: Results from a randomized study. Diabetes 2014;63:2474-85.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Esteghamati A, Larijani B, Aghajani MH, Ghaemi F, Kermanchi J, Shahrami A, et al. Diabetes in Iran: Prospective analysis from first nationwide diabetes report of national program for prevention and control of diabetes (NPPCD-2016). Sci Rep 2017;7:13461.  Back to cited text no. 35
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
Previous article  Next article
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed526    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded76    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal