This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Aging/ Geriatrics  • Revascularization  • Surgical Interventions  • Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Cardiovascular Intervention  • Alert me on articles by topic

Attractive Concept But No Evidence of Benefit

Albert Schömig, MD; Adnan Kastrati, MD

JAMA. 2005;293:1116-1118.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The goal of reperfusion therapy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is not only the early, full, and sustained restoration of antegrade flow at the epicardial level but also the achievement of adequate reperfusion at the myocardial level.¹ Failure to achieve myocardial reperfusion despite the presence of a patent coronary artery has been termed the "no-reflow" phenomenon and attributed to microvascular dysfunction.² Diagnostic techniques such as ST-segment resolution, angiographic blush, nuclear scintigraphy, myocardial contrast echocardiography, coronary Doppler, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography have been used to assess the "no-reflow" phenomenon.^2-3 The presence of no reflow in patients with AMI receiving reperfusion therapies has been associated with poor outcomes.⁴

Available imaging techniques have made possible the in vivo evaluation of coronary microcirculation and, along with an increasing amount of clinical data, have provided useful information on the frequency and clinical significance of atherosclerotic microembolization.⁵ . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliation: Deutsches Herzzentrum and 1 Medizinische Klinik rechts der Isar, Technische Universität, Munich, Germany.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Drug-Eluting Versus Bare Metal Stents in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Eight-Month Follow-Up in the Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DEDICATION) Trial
Kelbaek et al.
Circulation 2008;118:1155-1162.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Randomized comparison of distal protection versus conventional treatment in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the drug elution and distal protection in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (DEDICATION) trial.
Kelbaek et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:899-905.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

EMERALD, AIMI, and PROMISE: is there still a potential for embolic protection in primary PCI?
Limbruno and De Caterina
Eur Heart J 2006;27:1139-1145.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Distal Protection Fails to Improve STEMI Outcome
Journal Watch Cardiology 2005;2005:2-2.
FULL TEXT