CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

DAPT Duration

Abstract

Recommended Article

Clopidogrel or ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: CHANGE DAPT A prospective, randomized, open-label trial of 6-month versus 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Rationale and design of the State of the art: duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary stent implantation – past, present and future perspectives A Genotype-Guided Strategy for Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Primary PCI One-year outcome of a prospective trial stopping dual antiplatelet therapy at 3 months after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent implantation: ShortT and OPtimal duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent (STOPDAPT) trial Rationale and design of the comparison between a P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing implantation of coronary drug-eluting stents (SMART-CHOICE): A prospective multicenter randomized trial Derivation, Validation, and Prognostic Utility of a Prediction Rule for Nonresponse to Clopidogrel: The ABCD-GENE Score Impact of age on the comparison between short-term vs 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with the COMBO dual therapy stent: 2-Year follow-up results of the REDUCE trial

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)