CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Relation of prior statin and anti-hypertensive use to severity of disease among patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Findings from the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Colchicine after Myocardial Infarction Long-Term Prognostic Implications of Previous Silent Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting With Acute Myocardial Infarction Impact of Coronary Lesion Complexity in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: One-Year Outcomes From the Large, Multicentre e-Ultimaster Registry Comparative Effectiveness of β-Blocker Use Beyond 3 Years After Myocardial Infarction and Long-Term Outcomes Among Elderly Patients Open sesame technique in percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing: What Is its Value? The Prognostic Significance of Periprocedural Infarction in the Era of Potent Antithrombotic Therapy: The PRAGUE-18 Substudy Long-term outcomes after myocardial infarction in middle-aged and older patients with congenital heart disease-a nationwide study

Clinical TrialAugust 2018. [Epub ahead]

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

A Randomized Study of Distal Filter Protection Versus Conventional Treatment During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Attenuated Plaque Identified by Intravascular Ultrasound

K Hibi, K Kozuma, S Sonoda et al. Keywords: acute coronary syndrome(s); distal embolism; distal protection device; intravascular ultrasound

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of distal protection during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndromes at high risk for distal embolization.


BACKGROUND - The results of previous clinical trials indicated that the routine use of distal protection in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction did not improve clinical outcomes. However, selective use of distal protection by means of a filter-based distal protection system has not been evaluated.

METHODS - Two hundred patients with acute coronary syndromes who had native coronary artery lesions and attenuated plaque with longitudinal length ≥5 mm on pre-PCI intravascular ultrasound were randomly assigned to undergo PCI with distal protection or conventional treatment.

RESULTS - The primary endpoint (no-reflow phenomenon) occurred in 26 patients (26.5%) in the distal protection group and 39 patients (41.7%) in the conventional treatment group (p = 0.026), and the corrected TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) frame count after revascularization was significantly lower in the distal protection group (23 vs. 30.5; p = 0.0003). The incidence of cardiac death, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock after revascularization requiring defibrillation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was significantly lower in the distal protection group than in the conventional treatment group (0% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS - The use of distal embolic protection applied with a filter device decreased the incidence of the no-reflow phenomenon and was associated with fewer serious adverse cardiac events after revascularization than conventional PCI in patients with acute coronary syndromes with attenuated plaque ≥5 mm in length. (Assessment of Distal Protection Device in Patients at High Risk for Distal Embolism in Acute Coronary Syndrome [ACS] [VAMPIRE3]; NCT01460966)