Why the study?
Does the Rescue percutaneous thrombectomy system improve angiographic coronary flow and clinical outcomes without increasing costs in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Does the Rescue percutaneous thrombectomy system improve angiographic coronary flow and clinical outcomes without increasing costs in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Rescue percutaneous thrombectomy before mechanical dilatation in AMI is safe, improves angiographic flow, facilitates direct stenting, and is cost-neutral, though it did not change in-hospital clinical outcomes.
In acute myocardial infarction (AMI), slow flow (<TIMI 3) after reperfusion remains a problem. Removing the thrombus from culprit lesions should reduce this phenomenon and improve clinical outcome, so to evaluate the advantages of the Rescue percutaneous thrombectomy system (Rescue PT), 65 cases of AMI in which Rescue PT (RT group) was carried out were compared with 66 cases of AMI that were treated before Rescue PT became available (non-RT group). The study compared angiographic results, in-hospital clinical outcomes and the cost estimation during hospitalization. In the RT group, direct stenting was chosen more frequently (57% vs 5%, p=0.002) and the number of balloon catheters used was less (0.7+/-0.8 vs 1.4+/-0.6, p<0.0001). The incidence of slow flow and the maximum serum creatine kinase value over 24 h were lower in the RT group (3.1% vs 19.7%, p=0.01 and 3444+/-2218 IU vs 4182+/-3010 IU, p<0.05 respectively); however, in-hospital clinical outcomes were identical. No major complication related to the Rescue PT procedure was found. The cost for the initial procedure and the total cost during hospitalization were similar between the groups. Thrombectomy with Rescue PT before mechanical dilatation of the culprit lesions is safe and feasible, even in the emergency clinical setting, and results in better angiographic coronary flow. This therapy facilitates direct stenting and does not increase the cost of treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anzai et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: