BACKGROUND: No-/slow-reflow indicates worse outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with high thrombus burden. We examined whether deferred stenting (DS) strategy reduces no-/slow-reflow or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden. METHODS: We performed an open-label, multi-center, prospective cohort study among eligible patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden who further received pPCI. All participants received PCI with DS (second procedure performed within 48-72 h) or immediate-stenting (IS) strategy. The primary outcome was the incidence of no-/slow-reflow. We evaluated MACEs and bleeding events during hospitalization and at 30- and 90-day follow-ups. RESULTS: We recruited 245 patients to this study, including 51 with DS and 194 with IS. Baseline clinical characters were comparable between the 2 strategies. Incidence of no-/slow-reflow defined by thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade was not significantly different between the 2 strategies [DS: 5 (9.8%), IS: 33 (17.0%), P=0.21]. No-/slow-reflow by TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) was less prevalent in DS [20 (39.2%) vs. 107 (55.2%), P=0.04]. No significant differences were found in recurrence of myocardial infarction (P=0.56), cardiac death (P=0.37), all-cause mortality (P=0.37), heart failure-induced readmission (P=0.35), or bleeding (P=0.61) between the 2 strategies in-hospital, and at 30- and 90-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients with high thrombus burden who underwent pPCI, DS strategy reduced no-/slow-reflow of microcirculation. However, DS strategy did not reduce incidence of MACEs or bleeding. 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: No-/slow-reflow indicates worse outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with high thrombus burden. We examined whether deferred stenting (DS) strategy reduces no-/slow-reflow or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden. METHODS: We performed an open-label, multi-center, prospective cohort study among eligible patients with acute STEMI and high thrombus burden who further received pPCI. All participants received PCI with DS (second procedure performed within 48-72 h) or immediate-stenting (IS) strategy. The primary outcome was the incidence of no-/slow-reflow. We evaluated MACEs and bleeding events during hospitalization and at 30- and 90-day follow-ups. RESULTS: We recruited 245 patients to this study, including 51 with DS and 194 with IS. Baseline clinical characters were comparable between the 2 strategies. Incidence of no-/slow-reflow defined by thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade was not significantly different between the 2 strategies [DS: 5 (9.8%), IS: 33 (17.0%), P=0.21]. No-/slow-reflow by TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) was less prevalent in DS [20 (39.2%) vs. 107 (55.2%), P=0.04]. No significant differences were found in recurrence of myocardial infarction (P=0.56), cardiac death (P=0.37), all-cause mortality (P=0.37), heart failure-induced readmission (P=0.35), or bleeding (P=0.61) between the 2 strategies in-hospital, and at 30- and 90-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients with high thrombus burden who underwent pPCI, DS strategy reduced no-/slow-reflow of microcirculation. However, DS strategy did not reduce incidence of MACEs or bleeding. 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); deferred stenting; high thrombus burden; major adverse cardiac events (MACEs); microcirculation
Authors: Ankit Garg; Bruce R Brodie; Thomas D Stuckey; Ross F Garberich; Patrick Tobbia; Charles Hansen; Grace Kissling; Hemal Kadakia; Daniel Lips; Timothy D Henry Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sorin J Brener; Jan-Henk Dambrink; Akiko Maehara; Saqib Chowdhary; Anthony H Gershlick; Philippe Genereux; Jacques Koolen; Roxana Mehran; Martin Fahy; C Michael Gibson; Gregg W Stone Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Jacob Lønborg; Thomas Engstrøm; Kiril Aleksov Ahtarovski; Lars Nepper-Christensen; Steffen Helqvist; Niels Vejlstrup; Kasper Kyhl; Mikkel Malby Schoos; Ali Ghotbi; Christoffer Göransson; Litten Bertelsen; Lene Holmvang; Frants Pedersen; Erik Jørgensen; Kari Saunamäki; Peter Clemmensen; Ole De Backer; Lene Kløvgaard; Dan Eik Høfsten; Lars Køber; Henning Kelbæk Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: C L Grines; K F Browne; J Marco; D Rothbaum; G W Stone; J O'Keefe; P Overlie; B Donohue; N Chelliah; G C Timmis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-03-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Carrick; Keith G Oldroyd; Margaret McEntegart; Caroline Haig; Mark C Petrie; Hany Eteiba; Stuart Hood; Colum Owens; Stuart Watkins; Jamie Layland; Mitchell Lindsay; Eileen Peat; Alan Rae; Miles Behan; Arvind Sood; W Stewart Hillis; Ify Mordi; Ahmed Mahrous; Nadeem Ahmed; Rebekah Wilson; Laura Lasalle; Philippe Généreux; Ian Ford; Colin Berry Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 24.094