OBJECTIVES: The Protection During Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention to Prevent Distal Embolization (PRIDE) study compared outcomes with the TriActiv System (Kensey Nash Corp., Exton, Pennsylvania), a balloon-protection flush and extraction device, with an embolic protection group during treatment of saphenous venous grafts (SVGs). BACKGROUND: Treatment of SVGs with embolic protection reduces adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We conducted a prospective trial randomizing 631 patients with coronary ischemia and lesions in SVGs to embolic protection with the TriActiv System or control group (Guardwire System [Medtronic AVE, Santa Rosa, California] or Filterwire EX [Boston Scientific Corp., Maple Grove, Minnesota]). RESULTS: The incidence of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days was 11.2% for the TriActiv group and 10.1% for the control group (relative risk = 1.1%; 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.76; p = 0.65; p = 0.02 for non-inferiority). Safety and efficacy end points were similar between groups except that patients randomized to the TriActiv System had more hemorrhagic complications (10.9% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The TriActiv System was not inferior to approved embolic protection devices for the treatment of diseased SVGs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The Protection During Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention to Prevent Distal Embolization (PRIDE) study compared outcomes with the TriActiv System (Kensey Nash Corp., Exton, Pennsylvania), a balloon-protection flush and extraction device, with an embolic protection group during treatment of saphenous venous grafts (SVGs). BACKGROUND: Treatment of SVGs with embolic protection reduces adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We conducted a prospective trial randomizing 631 patients with coronary ischemia and lesions in SVGs to embolic protection with the TriActiv System or control group (Guardwire System [Medtronic AVE, Santa Rosa, California] or Filterwire EX [Boston Scientific Corp., Maple Grove, Minnesota]). RESULTS: The incidence of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days was 11.2% for the TriActiv group and 10.1% for the control group (relative risk = 1.1%; 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.76; p = 0.65; p = 0.02 for non-inferiority). Safety and efficacy end points were similar between groups except that patients randomized to the TriActiv System had more hemorrhagic complications (10.9% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The TriActiv System was not inferior to approved embolic protection devices for the treatment of diseased SVGs.
Authors: Rafał Januszek; Zbigniew Siudak; Artur Dziewierz; Tomasz Rakowski; Dariusz Dudek; Stanisław Bartuś Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 3.318