Key result
Stenting with the GuardWire Plus distal protection device reduced the rates of slow flow and no-reflow immediately after PCI compared to control (5.3% vs 11.4%, P=0.05) in patients with AMI.
Why the study?
Does primary stenting with a distal protection device improve myocardial perfusion and reduce infarct size in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
RCT (n=341)
Yes
Does primary stenting with a distal protection device improve myocardial perfusion and reduce infarct size in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.3% vs 11.4%
p-value: p=0.05
The use of a distal protection device during primary stenting for AMI angiographically improved myocardial perfusion but did not demonstrate a preventive effect on myocardial damage.
Distal protection may aid perfusion in select AMI cases; leaves open whether routine use improves outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the myocardium-reperfusing effect of a distal protection device, GuardWire Plus (GuardWire Plus), in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Distal embolization may result in reduced myocardial perfusion, increasing the risk of non-Q-wave myocardial infarction and death. Distal protection devices may protect the microcirculation from embolic debris, improving short- and long-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: From February 2002 to July 2003, a total of 341 AMI patients at 22 institutions in Japan were enrolled in the present, multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Patients experiencing AMI within 12 hr of symptom onset, who were considered treatable by stenting and who met the inclusion criteria, were eligible for randomization. Stenting with and without GuardWire Plus was conducted to examine whether the device provides faster and more complete ST-segment resolution, smaller infarct size, and improved myocardial blush score. RESULTS: The rates of slow flow and no-reflow immediately after PCI were 5.3 and 11.4% in the GuardWire Plus and control groups, respectively (P = 0.05). Blush score 3 acquisition rates immediately after PCI were 25.2 and 20.3% in the GuardWire Plus and control groups, respectively (P = 0.26), and the rates at 30 days after PCI were 42.9 and 30.4%, respectively (P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: A significant difference was found between the GuardWire Plus and control groups with respect to the total incidence of distal embolization, indicating that GuardWire Plus angiographically improved myocardial perfusion without demonstrating the preventive effect of myocardial damage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Muramatsu et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n=341). GuardWire Plus vs. Stenting without GuardWire Plus was evaluated on Slow flow and no-reflow immediately after PCI (p=0.05). Stenting with the GuardWire Plus distal protection device reduced the rates of slow flow and no-reflow immediately after PCI compared to control (5.3% vs 11.4%, P=0.05) in patients with AMI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: