Effect of hemorheological parameters on myocardial injury after primary or elective percutaneous coronary intervention

Francesco Fracassi, Vincenzo Vetrugno, Alessandro Mandurino-Mirizzi, Nicola Cosentino, Serena Panicale, Patrizia Caprari, Giampaolo Niccoli, Filippo Crea

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


BACKGROUND: Abnormal blood viscosity favors atherosclerosis owing to endothelial dysfunction and changes in shear stress. Its effect on coronary microvasculature during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still unknown. We aimed to investigate the role of hemorheological parameters in the incidence of microvascular obstruction (MVO) and the periprocedural necrosis after primary or elective PCI, and secondarily, we evaluated their prognostic significance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 25 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 30 patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and 30 patients with stable angina (SA) undergoing PCI. MVO in patients with STEMI and periprocedural necrosis in patients with NSTEMI and those with SA were assessed using angiographic/electrocardiographic and laboratory methods, respectively. Hemorheological profile included blood viscosity (η) at shear rates 200 s and 1 s, the erythrocyte aggregation index (η1/η200), and plasma viscosity. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurrence was evaluated at follow-up.

RESULTS: Patients with STEMI experiencing angiographic MVO (28%) had higher η200 (5.42±1.28 vs. 3.98±1.22 mPa[BULLET OPERATOR]s; P=0.015). Similarly, patients with STEMI experiencing electrocardiographic MVO (56%) had higher η200 (4.58±0.36 vs. 3.94±0.19 mPa[BULLET OPERATOR]s; P<0.001). Among patients with SA and patients with NSTEMI, those experiencing periprocedural necrosis (23.3%) had higher η200 (5.30±0.86 vs. 4.37±0.88 mPa[BULLET OPERATOR]s; P=0.001), η1 (19.52±9.62 vs. 13.29±7.65 mPa[BULLET OPERATOR]s; P=0.015) and η1/η200 values (3.64±1.50 vs. 2.72±0.92; P=0.007). These significant differences were maintained after adjustment for age, sex, and cardiovascular risk factors. At follow-up (30±6 months), 25 (29.4%) patients presented major adverse cardiovascular events, and they had higher η200 (5.18±1.00 vs. 4.25±1.01 mPa[BULLET OPERATOR]s; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing either urgent or elective PCI, hemorheological parameters might contribute to myocardial injury and, if furtherly confirmed, to an unfavorable outcome.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)638-646
Number of pages9
JournalCoronary Artery Disease
Issue number8
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2018


Dive into the research topics of 'Effect of hemorheological parameters on myocardial injury after primary or elective percutaneous coronary intervention'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this