Key result
Anatomy suitable for embolic protection was found in 78% of 259 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with 59% eligible for proximal and 49% for distal protection.
Why the study?
What proportion of unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have anatomy suitable for proximal or distal embolic protection devices during percutaneous coronary intervention?
Observational (n=259)
What proportion of unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have anatomy suitable for proximal or distal embolic protection devices during percutaneous coronary intervention?
A large majority (78%) of unselected STEMI patients undergoing PCI have coronary anatomy suitable for embolic protection devices, though eligibility varies by device type and culprit lesion location.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High anatomic suitability in STEMI supports randomized efficacy trials of embolic protection; does not justify routine clinical use.
Although there has been enthusiasm for using embolic protection devices in acute myocardial infarction, it is unclear how often these devices can be used in nonselected patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential eligibility for use of either proximal or distal embolic protection during primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention in a consecutive, nonselected population. We analyzed the angiograms of 259 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to determine eligibility for use of either type of protection device. Overall, 202 (78%) patients had anatomy suitable for embolic protection, including 154 (59%) who were eligible for proximal protection, 128 (49%) who were eligible for distal protection, and 80 (31%) who were eligible for both devices. Patients eligible for proximal protection were more likely to have a right coronary culprit, whereas patients eligible for distal protection were more likely to have a lesion in the left anterior descending coronary artery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mattichak et al. (2005) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n=259). Proximal or distal embolic protection devices was evaluated on Anatomy suitable for embolic protection. Anatomy suitable for embolic protection was found in 78% of 259 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with 59% eligible for proximal and 49% for distal protection.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: