P3590Impact of right ventricular branch slow flow phenomenon post percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome to predict sustained right ventricular dysfunction

Abstract

Abstract Background Although Right Ventricular dysfunction (RVD) is one of the predictor of poor prognosis, it is believed that ischemic RVD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) restores quickly. Because right ventricular perfusion has more ischemic preconditioning compared with left ventricle, due to their complex perfusion system. However, little is known about the time courses of RVD after ACS-PCI andtheir prognosis. We evaluated the relationship between right ventricular branch slow flow phenomenon (RVB-SF) post ACS-PCI in right coronary artery (RCA) and RVD at 6–8 months follow-up. Method We retrospectively analyzed consecutive 82 patients who underwent PCI for ACS in proximal or mid portion of RCA from August 2011 to March 2018 in our institution. Finally, both baseline and follow-up data were obtained from 70 patients. We analyzed TIMI frame count (TFC) to confirm the presence of RVB-SF (TFC ≥40 frame) after PCI. We also analyzed right ventricular fractional area change (RVFAC) at baseline and follow-up using echocardiography to detect sustained RVD (RVFAC ≤35%). Result We divided the patients into two groups (RVB-SF: 36 patients, RVB non-SF: 34 patients). Patient clinical characteristics were similar in both groups (sex, age, risk factors, medication, onset to balloon time, left ventricular stroke volume, max creatine kinase). Baseline RVFAC and follow-up RVFAC was significantly smaller in RVB-SF than in RVB non-SF, respectively. (27.1±1.7% vs. 38.3±1.8%, 31.4±1.0% vs. 48.7±1.1%, P<0.0001). However, ΔRVFAC (follow-up RVFAC – baseline RVFAC) was similar between groups. The size of inferior vena cava and systolic pulmonary artery pressure at follow-up were similar in both groups (12.1±0.6 mm vs. 11.7±0.7 mm, P=0.67, 25.7±1.5 mmHg vs. 25.2±1.5 mmHg, P=0.82). In RVB non-SF, 10 patients (29.4%) were diagnosed clinical RVAMI. However, follow-up RVFAC were similar and preserved in both groups (RVAMI: 48.1±1.3%, non-RVAMI: 49.9±1.9%, P=0.85). In RVB-SF, 19 patients (52.7%) were diagnosed clinical RVAMI. Follow-up RVFAC did not improved significantly in both groups (RVAMI: 30.4±1.4% vs. non-RVAMI: 32.6±1.5%, P=0.70). Multivariate analysis showed RVB-SF was the only independent predictor of sustained RVD at 6–8 months follow-up after ACS-PCI. Conclusion RVB-SF findings after ACS-PCI for RCA could predict sustained RVD at mid-term follow-up, which may indicate future prolonged RVD.