CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparative effectiveness analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with chronic kidney disease and unprotected left main coronary artery disease EXCELling in Left Main Intervention Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents or first-generation Paclitaxel-eluting stents for unprotected left main disease Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Left Main Disease: Pre- and Post-EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Everolimus Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) and NOBLE (Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularization Study) Era Long-Term Outcomes of Different Two-Stent Techniques With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Unprotected Left Main Bifurcation Disease: Insights From the FAILS-2 Study 10-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Impact of SYNTAX Score on 10-Year Outcomes After Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Intravascular Imaging and 12-Month Mortality After Unprotected Left Main Stem PCI: An Analysis From the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Database

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)