A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Effect of acute myocardial infarction on the utility of fractional flow reserve for the physiologic assessment of the severity of coronary artery narrowing. | LitMetric

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to be a useful physiologic index of coronary lesion severity in myocardial beds of patients without prior infarction and in those with remote infarction. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) causes myocardial necrosis and microvascular stunning, embolization, and damage. Whether FFR remains a useful index of epicardial flow in the setting of recent myocardial infarction is not established. Cardiac risk factors, serum troponin I, angiographic minimal lumen diameter (MLD), percent diameter stenosis (DS), lesion length, vessel reference diameter, hyperemic central aortic pressure, hyperemic pressure distal to stenosis, and FFR were compared in 43 vessels subtending recent AMI beds to 25 control vessels, matched by lesion length and MLD, in patients without AMI. There were no differences in DS, MLD, lesion length, or reference diameter between AMI and non-AMI groups. Patients with AMI had mean troponin I levels of 91.8 +/- 162 ng/ml. Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in patients with than without AMI (55 +/- 9% vs 62 +/- 8%, p <0.05). There were no significant differences in hyperemic central aortic pressure (92 +/- 13 vs 99 +/- 15 mm Hg, p = NS), hyperemic pressure distal to the stenosis (62 +/- 17 vs 66 +/- 19 mm Hg, p = NS), or FFR (0.67 +/- 17 vs 0.68 +/- 17, p = NS) between recent AMI and non-AMI control patients. There was a significant correlation between DS and FFR for both patients with (p <0.001) and without (p = 0.003) infarctions. Thus, FFR and the relation between FFR and DS of lesions subtending AMI was not significantly different from FFR of angiographically matched lesions in patients without AMI.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.01.035DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

myocardial infarction
12
lesion length
12
patients ami
12
acute myocardial
8
fractional flow
8
flow reserve
8
reference diameter
8
ami
6
infarction
5
infarction utility
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!