期刊文献+

Diver CE versus Guardwire Plus for thrombectomy in patients with inferior myocardial infarction:a trial of aspiration of thrombus during primary angioplasty for inferior myocardial infarction 被引量:29

Diver CE versus Guardwire Plus for thrombectomy in patients with inferior myocardial infarction:a trial of aspiration of thrombus during primary angioplasty for inferior myocardial infarction
原文传递
导出
摘要 Background Different feasible and safe thrombectomy and distal protection devices have been used in clinical practice. The efficiency and safety of adjunct thrombectomy using Diver CE device (Invatec, Italy) versus Guardwire Plus device (Medtronic, USA) before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were compared in patients with acute inferior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for less than 12 hours, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade 0 to 1, and total occlusion of the proximal right coronary artery (≥3 mm in diameter) in a prospective randomized single-center study. Methods The primary end point was the magnitude of ST-segment resolution (STR) (〉70%) measured immediately, 90 minutes and 6 hours after PCI, myocardial blush grade and slow flow or no-reflow. Secondary end points were left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) including death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and stroke at 30 days. Results A total of 122 patients were equally divided into Diver CE group and Guardwire Plus group, which were comparable by age ((60±14) years vs (60±13) years), male (82% vs 84%), diabetes (31% vs 28%), previous coronary artery disease (25% vs 23%), onset-to-angiogram ((350±185) min vs (345±180) min), and use of glycoprotein lib/llia inhibitor (11% vs 13%). The magnitude of ST-segment resolution was similar in the two groups as ST-segment resolution 〉70% (57% vs 59%; P〉0.05). Similar slow flow/no-reflow rates were observed in the Diver CE group (8%) and the Guardwire Plus group (7%). TIMI flow grade 3 was obtained in 95% vs 97% patients, respectively (P〉0.05). Myocardial blush grade 3 was similar (70% vs 72%; P〉0.05). Thirty-day clinical outcome was comparable (LVEF, 0.54±0.12 vs 0.53 ±0.11; death, 3% vs 3%; myocardial infarction, 2% vs 0%; and target vessel revascularization, 2% vs 2%; P〉0.05, respectively). Conclusions Removal of thrombus burden with the Diver CE catheter before stenting leads to similar improvement of myocardial reperfusion in patients with inferior STEMI and total occlusion of the proximal right coronary artery (≥3 mm in diameter) compared with the Guardwire Plus device, as illustrated by a reduced risk of distal embolization and improved ST-segment resolution. Background Different feasible and safe thrombectomy and distal protection devices have been used in clinical practice. The efficiency and safety of adjunct thrombectomy using Diver CE device (Invatec, Italy) versus Guardwire Plus device (Medtronic, USA) before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were compared in patients with acute inferior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for less than 12 hours, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade 0 to 1, and total occlusion of the proximal right coronary artery (≥3 mm in diameter) in a prospective randomized single-center study. Methods The primary end point was the magnitude of ST-segment resolution (STR) (〉70%) measured immediately, 90 minutes and 6 hours after PCI, myocardial blush grade and slow flow or no-reflow. Secondary end points were left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) including death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and stroke at 30 days. Results A total of 122 patients were equally divided into Diver CE group and Guardwire Plus group, which were comparable by age ((60±14) years vs (60±13) years), male (82% vs 84%), diabetes (31% vs 28%), previous coronary artery disease (25% vs 23%), onset-to-angiogram ((350±185) min vs (345±180) min), and use of glycoprotein lib/llia inhibitor (11% vs 13%). The magnitude of ST-segment resolution was similar in the two groups as ST-segment resolution 〉70% (57% vs 59%; P〉0.05). Similar slow flow/no-reflow rates were observed in the Diver CE group (8%) and the Guardwire Plus group (7%). TIMI flow grade 3 was obtained in 95% vs 97% patients, respectively (P〉0.05). Myocardial blush grade 3 was similar (70% vs 72%; P〉0.05). Thirty-day clinical outcome was comparable (LVEF, 0.54±0.12 vs 0.53 ±0.11; death, 3% vs 3%; myocardial infarction, 2% vs 0%; and target vessel revascularization, 2% vs 2%; P〉0.05, respectively). Conclusions Removal of thrombus burden with the Diver CE catheter before stenting leads to similar improvement of myocardial reperfusion in patients with inferior STEMI and total occlusion of the proximal right coronary artery (≥3 mm in diameter) compared with the Guardwire Plus device, as illustrated by a reduced risk of distal embolization and improved ST-segment resolution.
出处 《Chinese Medical Journal》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2007年第7期557-561,共5页 中华医学杂志(英文版)
关键词 acute myocardial infarction STENTING thrombectomy devices acute myocardial infarction stenting thrombectomy devices
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献9

  • 1颜红兵,高焱莎,万鹏,刘景山,柯元南.急诊经桡动脉应用Percusurge Guardwire装置一例[J].中国介入心脏病学杂志,2004,12(6):351-351. 被引量:1
  • 2颜红兵 柯元南.急性心肌梗死直接冠状动脉介入治疗中的无复流现象研究[J].中华心血管病杂志,2003,31:21-23.
  • 3Kusuyama T, Kataoka T, Iida H, et al. Comparison of temporary occlusion and aspiration system versus the conventional method during coronary for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol, 2004,94:1041-1043.
  • 4NakamuraT, Kubo N, Seki Y, et al. Effects of a distal protection device during primary stenting in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction. Circ J, 2004,68:763-768.
  • 5Yip HK, Chen MC, Chang HW, et al. Transradial application of PercuSurge Guardwire device during primary percutaneous intervention of infarct-related artery with high-burden thrombus formation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2004,61:503-511.
  • 6Li SS, Lam CW, So YC, et al. The use of a distal occlusion balloon protection device in acute coronary syndrome. Int J Cardiol, 2003, 92:281-284.
  • 7Huang Z, Katoh O, Nakarnura S, et al. Evaluation of the PercuSurge Guardwire plus temporary occlusion and aspiration system during primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction, Catheter Cardiovasc lnterv, 2003, 60:443-451.
  • 8Stone GW, Webb J, Cox DA, et al. Distal microcirculatory protection during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 2005,293:1063-1072.
  • 9Stone GW, Rogers C, Hermiller J, et al. Randomized comparison of distal protection with a filter-based catheter and a balloon occlusion and aspiration system during percutaneous intervention of diseased saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation,2003,108:548-553.

共引文献10

同被引文献80

引证文献29

二级引证文献222

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部