scholarly journals Thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved outcome in patients with STEMI and a large thrombus burden

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 030006052110126
Author(s):  
Ning Bin ◽  
Feifei Zhang ◽  
Xuelian Song ◽  
Yuetao Xie ◽  
Meixue Jia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Thrombus Aspiration ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Timi Frame Count ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Myocardial Infraction

Background The benefit of thrombus aspiration (TA) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains controversial. This study aimed to assess TA's impact on the outcome and prognosis for patients with STEMI and a large thrombus burden during PPCI. Methods This retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients with STEMI and a large thrombus burden (thrombolysis in myocardial infraction [TIMI] thrombus grade ≥4) who underwent conventional PPCI (n = 126) or PPCI + TA (n = 208) between February 2017 and January 2019. The procedure outcome and clinical prognosis were compared. Results Postprocedural vessel diameter was larger, and corrected TIMI frame count (cTFC) was lower in the PPCI + TA compared with the PPCI group. The proportion of postprocedural TIMI 3 flow was 83.3% in the PPC group and 94.2% in the PPCI+TA group. During the 12-month follow-up, no significant differences existed in the incidence of cardiac death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, or stroke. Conclusion Application of TA in patients with STEMI and a large thrombus burden during PPCI may improve the procedural outcome, but it showed no benefit on the clinical prognosis in the 12-month follow-up. Longer follow-up studies are needed to confirm TA's clinical implications in patients with STEMI.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of thrombus aspiration in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nevio Taglieri ◽  
Maria Letizia Bacchi Reggiani ◽  
Gabriele Ghetti ◽  
Francesco Saia ◽  
Miriam Compagnone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Thrombus Aspiration ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction ◽  
St Segment ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Background: The role of thrombus aspiration plus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction remains controversial. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of 25 randomised controlled trials in which 21,740 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients were randomly assigned to thrombus aspiration plus primary percutaneous coronary intervention or primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Study endpoints were: death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke. Results: On pooled analysis, the risk of death (4.3% vs. 4.8%, odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–1.03; P=0.123), myocardial infarction (2.4% vs. 2.5%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80–1.13; P=0.57) and stent thrombosis (1.3% vs. 1.6%, OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63–1.01; P=0.066) was similar between thrombus aspiration plus primary percutaneous coronary intervention and primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The risk of stroke was higher in the thrombus aspiration plus primary percutaneous coronary intervention than the primary percutaneous coronary intervention group (0.84% vs. 0.59%, OR 1.401, 95% CI 1.004–1.954; P=0.047). However, on sensitivity analysis after removing the TOTAL trial, thrombus aspiration plus primary percutaneous coronary intervention was not associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.58–1.78). The weak association between thrombus aspiration and stroke was also confirmed by the fact that the lower bound of the 95% CI was slightly below unity after removing either the study by Kaltoft or the ITTI trial. There was no interaction between the main study results and follow-up, evidence of coronary thrombus, or study sample size. Conclusions: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, thrombus aspiration plus primary percutaneous coronary intervention does not reduce the risk of death, myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. Thrombus aspiration plus primary percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with an increased risk of stroke; however, this latter finding appears weak.

scholarly journals Long-Term Outcome of the Randomized DAPA Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle M. Haanschoten ◽  
Arif Elvan ◽  
Anand R. Ramdat Misier ◽  
Peter Paul H.M. Delnoy ◽  
Jaap Jan J. Smit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction ◽  
St Segment ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Background: The randomized DAPA trial (Defibrillator After Primary Angioplasty) aimed to evaluate the survival benefit of prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation in early selected high-risk patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Methods: A randomized, multicenter, controlled trial compared ICD versus conventional medical therapy in high-risk patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, based on one of the following factors: left ventricular ejection fraction <30% within 4 days after ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, primary ventricular fibrillation, Killip class ≥2 or TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) flow <3 after percutaneous coronary intervention. ICD was implanted 30 to 60 days after MI. Primary end point was all-cause mortality at 3 years follow-up. The trial prematurely ended after inclusion of 266 patients (38% of the calculated sample size). Additional survival assessment was performed in February 2019 for the primary end point. Results: A total of 266 patients, 78.2% males, with a mean age of 60.8±11.3 years, were enrolled. One hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to the ICD arm and 135 patients to the control arm. All-cause mortality was significant lower in the ICD group (5% versus 13%, hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15–0.95]) after 3 years follow-up. Appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 9 patients at 3 years follow-up (5 within the first 8 months after implantation). After a median long-term follow-up of 9 years (interquartile range, 3–11), total mortality (18% versus 38%; hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37–0.91]), and cardiac mortality (hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.28–0.99]) was significant lower in the ICD group. Noncardiac death was not significantly different between groups. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased ≥10% in 46.5% of the patients during follow-up, and the extent of improvement was similar in both study groups. Conclusions: In this prematurely terminated and thus underpowered randomized trial, early prophylactic ICD implantation demonstrated lower total and cardiac mortality in patients with high-risk ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://www.trialregister.nl ; Unique identifier: Trial NL74 (NTR105).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document