Why the study?
Although distal embolization during PCI for AMI deteriorates cardiac function, whether distal protection improves prognosis remained controversial.
Does a filter-type distal protection device reduce congestive heart failure and major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing PCI for acute myocardial infarction?
Does a filter-type distal protection device reduce congestive heart failure and major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing PCI for acute myocardial infarction?
The use of a filter-type distal protection device during PCI for acute myocardial infarction significantly reduced the long-term occurrence of congestive heart failure, though it did not significantly affect MACE.
Should not yet change practice for distal protection in AMI PCI; challenges consensus against CHF benefit but remains hypothesis-generating.
Aim: Although distal embolization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) deteriorates cardiac function, whether distal protection (DP) can improve prognosis is still controversial. We investigated whether a filter-type DP device, Filtrap®, could improve long-term outcomes after PCI for AMI. Method: We studied 164 patients (130 men, mean age: 65.7 years) who underwent PCI. Patients were divided into two groups based on the use of Filtrap®. The occurrence of congestive heart failure (CHF) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, recurrent AMI, and target vessel revascularization were compared. Result: Between DP (n=53, 41 men, mean age: 65.5 years) and non-DP (n=111, 89 men, mean age: 65.8 years) groups, although there was significantly greater plaque area in the DP group than in the non-DP group, there were no significant differences in coronary reperfusion flow after PCI. Interestingly, patients with CHF in the non-DP group exhibited a higher CK level than those in the DP group. During a 2-year follow-up period, cumulative CHF was significantly lower in the DP group than in the non-DP group (log-rank p=0.018), and there was no significant difference in the MACE rate (log-rank p=0.238). The use of DP device could not predict MACE, but could predict CHF by multivariate analysis (odds ratio=0.099, 95% CI: 0.02–0.42, p=0.005). Conclusion: These results demonstrate that favorable clinical outcomes could be achieved by the filter-type DP device in AMI, particularly in patients with CHF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Teramoto et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: