Key result
Thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention did not significantly improve microcirculatory resistance (51.9 vs 47.1 U, p=0.723) compared to PCI alone in patients with high thrombus burden.
Why the study?
Studies have not demonstrated consistent outcomes following thrombus aspiration in PPCI.
Does thrombus aspiration during PPCI improve microcirculatory resistance and left ventricular function in patients with high thrombus burden?
Observational (n=45)
No
Does thrombus aspiration during PPCI improve microcirculatory resistance and left ventricular function in patients with high thrombus burden?
Absolute Event Rate: 51.9% vs 47.1%
p-value: p=0.723
Thrombus aspiration during PPCI for patients with high thrombus burden does not improve microvascular obstruction or long-term left ventricular function, and may be associated with worse post-procedure TIMI flow.
BACKGROUND: Studies have not demonstrated consistent outcomes following thrombus aspiration in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PPCI). We investigated the relationship between thrombus aspiration and microvascular obstruction as measured using Index of Microcirculatory Resistance (IMR) immediately following PPCI and Left Ventricle Function Improvement measured using Global Longitudinal Strain (GLS) six months following PPCI. Our aim is to determine microvascular obstruction and left ventricle function improvement six months following thrombus aspiration during PPCI. METHODS: This was a single-center, observational, prospective non-randomized study involving 45 patients with thrombus score 4-5 (defined as high thrombus burden) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow of 0-2 who subsequently underwent PPCI. Thrombus aspiration was conducted based on physician discretion. The IMR was measured immediately following the procedure. All patients underwent echocardiography to measure GLS at 24 h, 3 months and 6 months following PPCI. RESULTS: Thirty-three (73%) patients underwent thrombus aspiration during PPCI and twelve (27%) patients underwent the conventional PPCI. No significant difference in IMR was found between the group that underwent thrombus aspiration and the group that underwent conventional PCI (51.9 ± 41.5 vs 47.1 ± 35.6 p = 0.723). TIMI flow after PPCI was worse in thrombus aspiration group (OR 5.2 [1.2-23.2], p = 0.041). There was no difference in GLS between two groups at 6-month follow-up (- 13.0 ± 3.4 vs - 12.8 ± 4.6, p = 0.912). CONCLUSION: This study indicates no benefit of thrombus aspiration during PPCI in reducing either microvascular obstruction or left ventricular function at 6-month follow-up for patients with high thrombus burden. Nevertheless, further studies are required before definite conclusions can be made.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Firman et al. (2020) conducted an observational in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) with high thrombus burden (n=45). Thrombus aspiration vs. Conventional primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI alone) was evaluated on Microvascular obstruction measured by Index of Microcirculatory Resistance (IMR) immediately after PPCI (p=0.723). Thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention did not significantly improve microcirculatory resistance (51.9 vs 47.1 U, p=0.723) compared to PCI alone in patients with high thrombus burden.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: