CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

DAPT Duration

科研文章

荐读文献

6-Month Versus 12-Month Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Following Long Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: The IVUS-XPL Randomized Clinical Trial 'Ticagrelor alone vs. dual antiplatelet therapy from 1 month after drug-eluting coronary stenting among patients with STEMI': a post hoc analysis of the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial Long-term dual antiplatelet-induced intestinal injury resulting in translocation of intestinal bacteria into blood circulation increased the incidence of adverse events after PCI in patients with coronary artery disease Dual-antiplatelet treatment beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation (ARCTIC-Interruption): a randomised trial Patient-tailored antithrombotic therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention Cost-Effectiveness of Different Durations of Dual-Antiplatelet Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Individualized antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent deployment: Implication of clinical trials of different durations of dual antiplatelet therapy Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Undergoing PCI: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after PCI in Patients at High Bleeding Risk Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes

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)