الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 165 |  |  |
| | | from | 165 | | |
Abstract
Slow-flow/no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention is a common complication associated with poor prognosis, and its reported incidence rate ranges from 4% to 44%. shock index was an important factor for MACEs in patients with AMI, but it has been rarely reported in slow/no-reflow phenomenon. Aim: This study was conducted to explore whether shock index can effectively foresee angiographic noreflow in patients with AMI after Primary PCI. Ninety Egyptian patients with STEMI underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention with at least one drug-eluting stent, were included in this prospective observational study, and then at follow up patients were divided into 2 groups: no-reflow group (n=25) and normal flow group (n=65). There was statistically significant correlation between shock index and (age, SBP, HR, RBG, EF%, HTN, smoking history, dyslipidemia and type of MI). Methods: Ninety Egyptian patients with STEMI underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention with at least one drug-eluting stent, were included in this prospective observational study, and then at follow up patients were divided into 2 groups: no-reflow group (n=25) and normal flow group (n=65). Results: There was statistically significant correlation between shock index and (age, SBP, HR, RBG, EF%, HTN, smoking history, dyslipidemia and type of MI). Shock index was statistically significant in predicting cases with no-reflow with Cutoff point=0.605. Sensitivity=80.0%, Specificity=75.4%, PPV=55.6 %,NPV=90.7% and Accuracy=76.7%. Conclusion: No-reflow occurred in 27.8% of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI and was more likely with older age, high thrombus burden, DM, HTN, dyslipidemia, lower EF and longer time to PCI. • The statistically significant predictors of no-reflow were (age, dyslipidemia, SBP, RBG, shock index and modified shock index).