Key result
The use of the Filtrap distal protection device during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction significantly reduced the incidence of congestive heart failure compared to no distal protection (OR 0.099).
Why the study?
Does distal protection with a filter-type device reduce congestive heart failure and major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=164)
No
Does distal protection with a filter-type device reduce congestive heart failure and major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction?
Effect estimate: OR 0.099 (95% CI 0.02-0.42)
Absolute Event Rate: 5.7% vs 21.6%
p-value: p=0.005
The use of a filter-type distal protection device during primary PCI for acute myocardial infarction significantly reduced the long-term incidence of congestive heart failure, although it did not significantly reduce overall major adverse cardiac events.
Associated with lower CHF after primary PCI; leaves open whether filter-type distal protection improves outcomes in acute MI.
AIM: , could improve long-term outcomes after PCI for AMI. METHOD: . 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) conducted a cohort in Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) (n=164). Filtrap (filter-type distal protection device) vs. No distal protection was evaluated on Congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR 0.099, 95% CI 0.02-0.42, p=0.005). The use of the Filtrap distal protection device during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction significantly reduced the incidence of congestive heart failure compared to no distal protection (OR 0.099).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: