Abstract

Aims

Adjunctive thrombectomy and embolic protection devices in acute myocardial infarction have been extensively studied, although outcomes have mainly focused on surrogate markers of reperfusion. Therefore, the effect of adjunctive devices on clinical outcomes is unknown. This study sought to determine whether the use of a thrombectomy or embolic protection device during revascularization for acute myocardial infarction reduces mortality compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alone.

Methods and results

The Cochrane and Medline databases were searched for clinical trials that randomized patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction to an adjuvant device prior to PCI compared with PCI alone. Devices were grouped into catheter thrombus aspiration, mechanical thrombectomy, and embolic protection. There were a total of 30 studies with 6415 patients who met our selection criteria. Over a weighted mean follow-up of 5.0 months, the incidence of mortality among all studies was 3.2% for the adjunctive device group vs. 3.7% for PCI alone (relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–1.13). Among thrombus aspiration studies, mortality was 2.7% for the adjunctive device group vs. 4.4% for PCI alone (P = 0.018), for mechanical thrombectomy, mortality was 5.3% for the adjunctive device group vs. 2.8% for PCI alone (P = 0.050), and for embolic protection, mortality was 3.1% for the adjunctive device group vs. 3.4% for PCI alone (P = 0.69).

Conclusion

Catheter thrombus aspiration during acute myocardial infarction is beneficial in reducing mortality compared with PCI alone. Mechanical thrombectomy appears to increase mortality, whereas embolic protection appears to have a neutral effect.

Introduction

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during acute myocardial infarction usually achieves normalized coronary epicardial flow; however, distal embolization is common and it impairs microcirculation.1,2 Poor myocardial reperfusion is associated with adverse outcomes including reduced left ventricular function and survival.3–5 Numerous adjunctive coronary devices have been developed in an attempt to decrease or prevent embolization during revascularization and therefore to improve clinical outcomes.

The use of embolic protection devices to reduce adverse cardiac events in stable patients with saphenous vein graft lesions has been documented previously.6,7 Accordingly, embolic protection of saphenous vein grafts is considered class I therapy by the recent practice guidelines.8,9 Conversely, during acute myocardial infarction, the effect of adjunctive devices on clinical outcomes is unknown.10–12 Moreover, some devices such as the AngioJet device (Possis Medical, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) have been shown to increase the adverse cardiac events.13 One explanation why clinical outcome data with adjunctive devices is currently unknown is that individual trials have been powered to study only the surrogate markers of clinical outcomes, such as the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) blush grade14 and ST-segment resolution.15 Therefore, the aim is this study was to examine clinical outcomes, most notably mortality with similar type thrombectomy or embolic protection devices.

Methods

Literature review

A computerized literature search of the Cochrane and MEDLINE (R) databases from January 1996 to June 2008 was conducted for randomized clinical trials using the following MeSH terms and keywords: myocardial infarction, thrombectomy, suction, embolization, microcirculation, thrombus aspiration, embolic protection, and balloon occlusion. There was no language restriction. Supplements from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation, European Heart Journal, and American Journal of Cardiology were hand-searched, prior meta-analyses were reviewed, and ‘Thrombectomy’ and ‘Embolic Protection’ were used as a search terms in the websites http://clinicaltrials.gov and www.tctmd.com in an attempt to locate unpublished studies and increase the sensitivity of our search. We contacted selected study investigators to clarify outcome data. Eligible studies were finally cross-referenced with the Science Citation Index. Figure 1 displays the flow diagram of trial selection.

Figure 1

Flow diagram of the search strategy used to obtain the eligible studies.

Figure 1

Flow diagram of the search strategy used to obtain the eligible studies.

Selection criteria

We selected studies that randomized patients within 12 h of acute myocardial infarction to one of the three strategies to protect against embolization: (i) thrombus aspiration prior to PCI vs. PCI alone, (ii) mechanical thrombectomy prior to PCI vs. PCI alone, and (iii) embolic protection prior to PCI vs. PCI alone. We required that studies reported clinical outcome data and/or markers of myocardial reperfusion. We excluded studies that performed thrombectomy on saphenous vein grafts or studies that compared one type of thrombectomy device against another.

Definition of adjunctive devices

Catheter thrombus aspiration is performed by a low-profile catheter (Export, Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA; Pronto, Vascular Solutions, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Diver, Invatec, Brescia, Italy; Rescue, Boston Scientific/Scimed, Maple Grove, MN, USA; TVAC, Nipro, Osaka, Japan) that is advanced to the thrombus over a guidewire and aspiration performed through syringe suction. Mechanical aspiration devices (AngioJet; X-sizer, ev-3, White Bear Lake, MN, USA) apply energy through saline jets or a rotating catheter head to facilitate break-up of the thrombus prior to aspiration. Embolic protection devices (Percusurge GuardWire, Medtronic; FilterWire, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA; SpideRX, ev3, Minneapolis, MN, USA; Angioguard, Cordis, Miami, FL, USA) employ an occlusive balloon or filter that is advanced distal to the thrombus on it’s own guidewire prior to coronary revascularization. The GuardWire uses balloon occlusion, whereas the remaining devices use a filter.

Endpoints/data abstraction

The primary clinical endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and the individual cardiac outcomes of myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke. MACE was defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Myocardial infarction was defined as recurrent ischaemic symptoms with an elevation of creatine-kinase or troponin to at least twice the upper limit of normal. Stroke was defined as a major ischaemic or haemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident resulting in disabling neurological symptoms for at least 24 h. Target vessel revascularization was defined as recurrent ischaemic symptoms that resulted in the need for repeat PCI or surgical revascularization.

Markers of myocardial reperfusion included myocardial blush grade and ST-segment resolution. Optimal myocardial reperfusion was defined as TIMI blush grade of 3 (or at least 2 in some studies), whereas complete ST-segment resolution was defined as 70% (or at least 50% in some studies) resolution in peak ST-segments. We attempted to adjudicate this outcome at 60 min, although if this was unavailable, we recorded this outcome immediately after the procedure or up to 90 min after intervention. For studies with multiple time points, we used the time closest to 60 min. Outcomes were tabulated by two independent reviewers (A.A.B., D.J.K.) and the number of events that occurred in each arm of each trial was recorded. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and by a third reviewer (D.L.B.) if needed. Baseline information such as patient demographics, initial TIMI flow 0 or 1, ischaemic duration, and the extent of clinical follow-up was also tabulated.

Statistical analysis

For clinical outcomes, we used the intention-to-treat analysis, so that the denominator of the incidence was the total number of patients randomized to a given therapy. There were generally fewer patients available for the determination of myocardial blush grade or ST-segment analysis; therefore, to determine the incidence of these outcomes more accurately, we used the treatment-received (or protocol) analysis. Automatic ‘zero cell’ correction was used for studies with no events for a particular outcome.

A Mantel–Haenszel model was used to construct fixed effects summary risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences, whereas a DerSimonian–Laird model was used to construct random effects summary estimates. For all outcomes, we reported the fixed-effects model, unless there was significant heterogeneity, in which case we reported the random-effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by calculating I2 statistic and publication bias was assessed using the Begg’s method. Quality was assessed on the following components: adequate description of treatment allocation, blinded outcome assessment, and description of losses to follow-up.16 Since the experimental arm was an interventional device, concealment of allocation sequence was not possible. We followed the QUOROM statement for conducting high-quality meta-analysis.17

Clinical data were initially analysed among all the studies, and further analysed with similar type adjunctive devices grouped together. Since a proportion of the studies were abstract presentations, sensitivity analysis was performed on the published and non-published studies separately; however, the principal results were derived from all available studies. All outcomes were analysed at the maximal extent of clinical follow-up, while the mortality data were additionally analysed at 1 month or less. The weighted mean duration of follow-up was calculated according to an individual trial’s sample size and length of follow-up. Events reported to hospital discharge were assumed to occur at 3 days. All P-values were two-tailed, with statistical significance set at 0.05, and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated at the 95% level. All analyses were performed using STATA software v9.0. (STATA Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Baseline characteristics

A total of 30 studies with 6415 patients met our selection criteria (Figure 1, Tables 1, 2).13,18–47 All patients received aspirin and intravenous heparin. At least 300 mg of clopidogrel (or an equivalent dose of ticlopidine) was given in most studies. The remaining studies either did not give a thienopyridine loading dose or no information was available.20,25,27,29–34,44–47 Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used according to operator discretion. Thrombus aspiration devices represented 47% of the overall patient population, whereas embolic protection devices represented 38% and mechanical aspiration devices represented 15% of the study population. The proto-typical patient was male, with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (baseline TIMI 0/1 flow and frequently with visible thrombus) who presented <12 h from symptom onset. The duration of follow-up ranged from the time of hospital discharge to 12 months.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics and duration of follow-up for the study participants

Study Yeara Device Patients, n Age, years Male, % Baseline TIMI 0/1 flow, % Visible thrombus, % Ischaemia, hb GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, % Stents, % F/u, months 
Catheter aspiration devices 
 TAPAS18,19 2007, 2008 Export 535/536 63/63 68/73 55/60 49/44 3.2/3.1 93/90 92/92 1, 12 
 DEAR-MI20 2006 Pronto 74/74 57/60 84/76 81/73  3.4/3.3 100/100 99/97 
 De Luca21 2006 Diver 38/38 67/65 71/55   7.2/7.6   
 Kaltoft22 2006 Rescue 108/107 65/63 82/86 68/69 69/79 4.0/3.5 96/93 95/97 
 REMEDIA23 2005 Diver 50/49 61/60 90/78 86/90 58/55c 4.6/5.0b 68/63  
 Dudek24 2004 Rescue 40/32     4.3/3.9   
 PIHRATE25 Diver 102/94 61/58 79/81   4.1/4.2 62/63 99/97 
 VAMPIRE26 TVAC 180/175 63/64 81/78 75/75  5.4/6.2 0/0 94/94 
 Noel27 Export 24/26 61/61    4.7/4.7  83/69d 
 EXPIRA28 Export 88/87 67/65 65/55 100/100  6.8/7.6 100/100  1, 9 
 Sardella29 Diver 28/34 65/65 77/77   6.8/6.8   
 NONSTOP30 Rescue 129/129 64/66 80/80      
 Export31 Export 120/129 59/61 81/81 99/100  6.0/5.1 66/70  

 
Mechanical thrombectomy devices 
 AiMI13 2006 AngioJet 240/240 60/60 76/74 68/63  5.1/5.0 95/94 94/95 1e 
 X AMINE ST32 2005 X-sizer 100/101 61/62 76/73  100f  55/65 100/99 1, 6 
 Florence33 2004 AngioJet 50/50 63/66 41/39 76/80  3.9/4.4 98/98 98/98 
 Napodano34 2003 X-sizer 46/46 61/64 83/72   4.0/3.4 43/41 94/92 
 Beran35 2002 X-sizer 30/31 56/54 73/77 80/74  4.9/4.7 73/68  

 
Embolic protection devices 
 DEDICATION36 2008 FilterWireg 312/314 62/63 74/72 67/68 68/75 3.9/3.7 97/96 98/99 
 Tahk37 2008 GuardWire 50/46 57/57 78/78 67/76  5.7/5.5 0/1.8 100/100 1, 6 
 MICADO38 2007 GuardWire 80/74 65/65 86/76 78/71  5.2/4.4  100/98 1, 6 
 UpFlow MI39 2007 FilterWire 51/49 60/57 82/82 78/92  4.5/3.5 74/77  
 PREMIAR40 2007 SpideRX 70/70 60/60 86/77 85/83 90/97 2.5/2.4 26/26 99/97 1, 6 
 Ochala41 2006 GuardWire 57/63 58/59 53/71 84/78 58/71 6.0/6.0 9/100 70/66d 
 PROMISE42 2005 FilterWire 100/100 63/60 86/80 65/57  6.2/7.9   
 EMERALD43 2005 GuardWire 252/249 59/60 76/81 64/68 72/72 3.9/3.5 83/84 97/97 1, 6 
 DIPLOMATE44 Angioguard 32/28 32/28 61 70     
 Wang45 Angioguard 20/20        
 ASPARAGUS46 Guardwire 173/168 64/65 79/73 61/58     H, 6 
 Nanasato47 Guardwire 34/30        
Study Yeara Device Patients, n Age, years Male, % Baseline TIMI 0/1 flow, % Visible thrombus, % Ischaemia, hb GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, % Stents, % F/u, months 
Catheter aspiration devices 
 TAPAS18,19 2007, 2008 Export 535/536 63/63 68/73 55/60 49/44 3.2/3.1 93/90 92/92 1, 12 
 DEAR-MI20 2006 Pronto 74/74 57/60 84/76 81/73  3.4/3.3 100/100 99/97 
 De Luca21 2006 Diver 38/38 67/65 71/55   7.2/7.6   
 Kaltoft22 2006 Rescue 108/107 65/63 82/86 68/69 69/79 4.0/3.5 96/93 95/97 
 REMEDIA23 2005 Diver 50/49 61/60 90/78 86/90 58/55c 4.6/5.0b 68/63  
 Dudek24 2004 Rescue 40/32     4.3/3.9   
 PIHRATE25 Diver 102/94 61/58 79/81   4.1/4.2 62/63 99/97 
 VAMPIRE26 TVAC 180/175 63/64 81/78 75/75  5.4/6.2 0/0 94/94 
 Noel27 Export 24/26 61/61    4.7/4.7  83/69d 
 EXPIRA28 Export 88/87 67/65 65/55 100/100  6.8/7.6 100/100  1, 9 
 Sardella29 Diver 28/34 65/65 77/77   6.8/6.8   
 NONSTOP30 Rescue 129/129 64/66 80/80      
 Export31 Export 120/129 59/61 81/81 99/100  6.0/5.1 66/70  

 
Mechanical thrombectomy devices 
 AiMI13 2006 AngioJet 240/240 60/60 76/74 68/63  5.1/5.0 95/94 94/95 1e 
 X AMINE ST32 2005 X-sizer 100/101 61/62 76/73  100f  55/65 100/99 1, 6 
 Florence33 2004 AngioJet 50/50 63/66 41/39 76/80  3.9/4.4 98/98 98/98 
 Napodano34 2003 X-sizer 46/46 61/64 83/72   4.0/3.4 43/41 94/92 
 Beran35 2002 X-sizer 30/31 56/54 73/77 80/74  4.9/4.7 73/68  

 
Embolic protection devices 
 DEDICATION36 2008 FilterWireg 312/314 62/63 74/72 67/68 68/75 3.9/3.7 97/96 98/99 
 Tahk37 2008 GuardWire 50/46 57/57 78/78 67/76  5.7/5.5 0/1.8 100/100 1, 6 
 MICADO38 2007 GuardWire 80/74 65/65 86/76 78/71  5.2/4.4  100/98 1, 6 
 UpFlow MI39 2007 FilterWire 51/49 60/57 82/82 78/92  4.5/3.5 74/77  
 PREMIAR40 2007 SpideRX 70/70 60/60 86/77 85/83 90/97 2.5/2.4 26/26 99/97 1, 6 
 Ochala41 2006 GuardWire 57/63 58/59 53/71 84/78 58/71 6.0/6.0 9/100 70/66d 
 PROMISE42 2005 FilterWire 100/100 63/60 86/80 65/57  6.2/7.9   
 EMERALD43 2005 GuardWire 252/249 59/60 76/81 64/68 72/72 3.9/3.5 83/84 97/97 1, 6 
 DIPLOMATE44 Angioguard 32/28 32/28 61 70     
 Wang45 Angioguard 20/20        
 ASPARAGUS46 Guardwire 173/168 64/65 79/73 61/58     H, 6 
 Nanasato47 Guardwire 34/30        

Data are formatted as adjunctive device/PCI alone for baseline characteristics.

A, abstract; F/u, follow-up; GP, glycoprotein; H, follow-up to hospital discharge; n, number; NA, not available; TIMI, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction.

aDefined as year of publication.

bDefined as onset of ischaemic symptoms until percutaneous coronary intervention, except where noted which is the onset of symptoms until angiography.

cDefined as thrombus score of 4.

dDefined as direct stenting.

eOwing to the unexpected high rate of mortality in the control arm, mortality was adjudicated at 6 months.

fBy protocol, all study participants were required to have an occluded thrombus containing lesion.

gThe SpideRx device was used in 13% of participants.

Table 2

Quality assessment

Study Description of the generation of treatment allocation Outcome assessment blinded Follow-up: device vs. control (%) 
TAPAS Random number generator Yes 99/99 
DEAR-MI Not detailed Yes 100/100 
De Luca Not detailed Unclear 100/92 
Kaltoft Computer-generated block randomization Yes 100/100 
REMEDIA Random number generator Yes 96/98 
Dudek Random number generator Yes Not available 
PIHRATE Not detailed Unclear Not available 
VAMPIRE Not detailed Yes 100/100 
Noel Not detailed Unclear Not available 
EXPIRA Not detailed Unclear 100/100a 
Sardella Not detailed Unclear Not available 
NONSTOP Not detailed Unclear Not available 
Export Not detailed Unclear 100/100 
AiMi Not detailed Yes 100/100 
X AMINE ST Not detailed Yes 100/100 
Florence Random number generator Unclear 100/100 
Napodano Not detailed Yes 100/100 
Beran Not detailed Yes 100/100 
DEDICATION Not detailed Yes Not available 
Tahk Not detailed Unclear 90/93 
MICADO Not detailed Unclear Not available 
UpFlow MI Computer-generated block randomization Unclear Not available 
PREMIAR Not detailed Yes 100/100 
Ochala Not detailed Unclear Not available 
PROMISE Random number generator Yes 100/100 
EMERALD Telephone block randomization Yes 96/94 
DIPLOMATE Not detailed Unclear Not available 
Wang Not detailed Unclear Not available 
ASPARAGUS Not detailed Unclear Not available 
Nanasato Not detailed Unclear Not available 
Study Description of the generation of treatment allocation Outcome assessment blinded Follow-up: device vs. control (%) 
TAPAS Random number generator Yes 99/99 
DEAR-MI Not detailed Yes 100/100 
De Luca Not detailed Unclear 100/92 
Kaltoft Computer-generated block randomization Yes 100/100 
REMEDIA Random number generator Yes 96/98 
Dudek Random number generator Yes Not available 
PIHRATE Not detailed Unclear Not available 
VAMPIRE Not detailed Yes 100/100 
Noel Not detailed Unclear Not available 
EXPIRA Not detailed Unclear 100/100a 
Sardella Not detailed Unclear Not available 
NONSTOP Not detailed Unclear Not available 
Export Not detailed Unclear 100/100 
AiMi Not detailed Yes 100/100 
X AMINE ST Not detailed Yes 100/100 
Florence Random number generator Unclear 100/100 
Napodano Not detailed Yes 100/100 
Beran Not detailed Yes 100/100 
DEDICATION Not detailed Yes Not available 
Tahk Not detailed Unclear 90/93 
MICADO Not detailed Unclear Not available 
UpFlow MI Computer-generated block randomization Unclear Not available 
PREMIAR Not detailed Yes 100/100 
Ochala Not detailed Unclear Not available 
PROMISE Random number generator Yes 100/100 
EMERALD Telephone block randomization Yes 96/94 
DIPLOMATE Not detailed Unclear Not available 
Wang Not detailed Unclear Not available 
ASPARAGUS Not detailed Unclear Not available 
Nanasato Not detailed Unclear Not available 

aFor mortality.

Clinical events

Over a mean follow-up of 5.0 months, the incidence of mortality among the patients in all the studies was 3.2% for adjunctive devices vs. 3.7% for PCI alone (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.67–1.13, P = 0.29, I2 = 0%, P for bias = 0.62) (Figure 2). Among the thrombus aspiration studies at a mean of 6.2 months, mortality was 2.7 vs. 4.4% (P = 0.018), among the mechanical thrombectomy studies at a mean of 4.6 months, mortality was 5.3 vs. 2.8% (P = 0.050), and among the embolic protection studies at a mean of 3.7 months, mortality was 3.1 vs. 3.4% (P = 0.69), respectively, for adjunctive device vs. PCI alone (Figure 3). The results for early mortality (i.e. hospital discharge to 30 days) are shown in Table 3.

Figure 2

Summary plot of mortality. Duration of follow-up is documented after each trial name. Trials with no events in either arm are shown as ‘excluded’, whereas trials that did not adjudicate this outcome are not listed (the same applies for Figures 47).

Figure 2

Summary plot of mortality. Duration of follow-up is documented after each trial name. Trials with no events in either arm are shown as ‘excluded’, whereas trials that did not adjudicate this outcome are not listed (the same applies for Figures 47).

Figure 3

Incidence of mortality with similar type adjunctive thrombectomy devices grouped together.

Figure 3

Incidence of mortality with similar type adjunctive thrombectomy devices grouped together.

Table 3

Measures of effect for clinical outcomes and surrogate markers of reperfusion for similar type adjunctive devices

Outcome Weighted mean
f/u (months) 
Risk ratio 95% CI P-value for RR RD P-value for RD I2 (%) 
Catheter aspiration devices 
 Mortality 6.2 0.63 0.43–0.93 0.018 −0.017 0.017 
 Mortality 0.6 0.65 0.40–1.06 0.082 −0.0099 0.081 
 Myocardial infarction 6.2 0.65 0.37–1.12 0.12 −0.0085 0.13 
 Target vessel revascularization 6.2 0.83 0.64–1.08 0.16 −0.016 0.16 
 Stroke 6.2 3.43 0.85–14 0.085 0.016 0.067 
 MACE 6.2 0.76 0.62–0.95 0.013 −0.038 0.013 
 TIMI blush grade of 3 — 1.69 1.26–2.28 <0.0001 0.19 <0.0001 93 
 ST-segment resolution — 1.41 1.21–1.64 <0.0001 0.15 <0.0001 63 

 
Mechanical thrombectomy devices 
 Mortality 4.6 1.93 1.00–3.72 0.050 0.026 0.048 
 Mortality 1.0 2.01 0.95–4.23 0.068 0.021 0.065 14 
 Myocardial infarction 2.1 0.67 0.19–2.33 0.53 −0.0045 0.56 NA 
 Target vessel revascularization 2.1 1.14 0.43–3.01 0.79 0.0025 0.80 37 
 Stroke 2.1 2.67 0.71–10.00 0.14 0.011 0.15 
 MACE 2.1 1.64 0.60–4.44 0.33 0.032 0.071 57 
 TIMI blush grade of 3 — 1.16 0.71–1.90 0.55 0.012 0.72 81 
 ST-segment resolution — 1.25 0.99–1.58 0.061 0.080 0.017 78 

 
Embolic protection devices 
 Mortality 3.7 0.92 0.60–1.40 0.69 −0.0029 0.70 
 Mortality 0.8 0.79 0.49–1.29 0.35 −0.0065 0.36 
 Myocardial infarction 3.7 0.82 0.44–1.51 0.52 −0.0034 0.54 
 Target vessel revascularization 3.7 1.04 0.74–1.47 0.82 0.0022 0.82 
 Stroke 3.7 0.99 0.34–2.92 0.99 −0.000056 0.99 
 MACE 3.7 0.95 0.69–1.30 0.73 −0.0064 0.73 
 TIMI blush grade of 3 — 1.18 1.02–1.38 0.031 0.078 0.001 63 
 ST-segment resolution — 1.07 0.98–1.16 0.13 0.044 0.13 
Outcome Weighted mean
f/u (months) 
Risk ratio 95% CI P-value for RR RD P-value for RD I2 (%) 
Catheter aspiration devices 
 Mortality 6.2 0.63 0.43–0.93 0.018 −0.017 0.017 
 Mortality 0.6 0.65 0.40–1.06 0.082 −0.0099 0.081 
 Myocardial infarction 6.2 0.65 0.37–1.12 0.12 −0.0085 0.13 
 Target vessel revascularization 6.2 0.83 0.64–1.08 0.16 −0.016 0.16 
 Stroke 6.2 3.43 0.85–14 0.085 0.016 0.067 
 MACE 6.2 0.76 0.62–0.95 0.013 −0.038 0.013 
 TIMI blush grade of 3 — 1.69 1.26–2.28 <0.0001 0.19 <0.0001 93 
 ST-segment resolution — 1.41 1.21–1.64 <0.0001 0.15 <0.0001 63 

 
Mechanical thrombectomy devices 
 Mortality 4.6 1.93 1.00–3.72 0.050 0.026 0.048 
 Mortality 1.0 2.01 0.95–4.23 0.068 0.021 0.065 14 
 Myocardial infarction 2.1 0.67 0.19–2.33 0.53 −0.0045 0.56 NA 
 Target vessel revascularization 2.1 1.14 0.43–3.01 0.79 0.0025 0.80 37 
 Stroke 2.1 2.67 0.71–10.00 0.14 0.011 0.15 
 MACE 2.1 1.64 0.60–4.44 0.33 0.032 0.071 57 
 TIMI blush grade of 3 — 1.16 0.71–1.90 0.55 0.012 0.72 81 
 ST-segment resolution — 1.25 0.99–1.58 0.061 0.080 0.017 78 

 
Embolic protection devices 
 Mortality 3.7 0.92 0.60–1.40 0.69 −0.0029 0.70 
 Mortality 0.8 0.79 0.49–1.29 0.35 −0.0065 0.36 
 Myocardial infarction 3.7 0.82 0.44–1.51 0.52 −0.0034 0.54 
 Target vessel revascularization 3.7 1.04 0.74–1.47 0.82 0.0022 0.82 
 Stroke 3.7 0.99 0.34–2.92 0.99 −0.000056 0.99 
 MACE 3.7 0.95 0.69–1.30 0.73 −0.0064 0.73 
 TIMI blush grade of 3 — 1.18 1.02–1.38 0.031 0.078 0.001 63 
 ST-segment resolution — 1.07 0.98–1.16 0.13 0.044 0.13 

CI, confidence interval; f/u, follow-up; MACE, major adverse cardiac events; NA, not available; TIMI, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction; RR, relative risk; RD, risk difference.

Among all the studies, the incidence of myocardial infarction was 1.3 vs. 1.9% (Figure 4), the incidence of target vessel revascularization was 5.9 vs. 6.4% (Figure 5), the incidence of stroke was 1.3 vs. 0.59% (Figure 6), and the incidence of MACEs was 11.2 vs. 12.7% (Figure 7). The clinical outcomes for similar type adjunctive devices are presented in Table 3, and sensitivity analysis is presented in Table 4.

Figure 4

Summary plot of myocardial infarction.

Figure 4

Summary plot of myocardial infarction.

Figure 5

Summary plot of target vessel revascularization.

Figure 5

Summary plot of target vessel revascularization.

Figure 6

Summary plot of stroke.

Figure 6

Summary plot of stroke.

Figure 7

Summary plot of major adverse cardiac events.

Figure 7

Summary plot of major adverse cardiac events.

Table 4

Sensitivity analyses on clinical outcomes and surrogate markers of reperfusion

Group Mortality MI TVR Stroke MACE TIMI Blush 3 ST-resolution 
Catheter aspiration devices 
 Overall 0.63 (0.430.930.65 (0.37–1.12) 0.83 (0.64–1.08) 3.43 (0.85–13.9) 0.76 (0.620.951.69 (1.26–2.28)a 1.41 (1.211.64)a 
 Published 0.60 (0.390.950.59 (0.32–1.09) 0.89 (0.64–1.22) 2.30 (0.34–15.4) 0.83 (0.65–1.05) 1.54 (1.361.741.34 (1.211.48
 Abstract 0.71 (0.34–1.47) 1.01 (0.26–3.92) 0.72 (0.45–1.14) 5.15 (0.61–43.7) 0.60 (0.380.941.75 (1.042.95)a 1.46 (1.062.03)a 

 
Mechanical thrombectomy devices 
 Overall 1.93 (1.003.720.67 (0.19–2.33) 1.14 (0.43–3.01) 2.67 (0.71–10.0) 1.64 (0.60–4.44)a 1.16 (0.71–1.90)a 1.25 (0.99–1.58)a 
 Published 1.93 (1.003.720.67 (0.19–2.33) 1.14 (0.43–3.01) 2.67 (0.71–10.0) 1.64 (0.60–4.44)a 1.16 (0.71–1.90)a 1.25 (0.99–1.58)a 
 Abstract NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 
Embolic protection devices 
 Overall 0.92 (0.60–1.40) 0.82 (0.44–1.51) 1.04 (0.74–1.47) 0.99 (0.34–2.92) 0.95 (0.69–1.30) 1.18 (1.021.38)a 1.07 (0.98–1.16) 
 Published 0.92 (0.55–1.54) 0.85 (0.45–1.60) 1.07 (0.71–1.62) 0.99 (0.34–2.92) 0.94 (0.61–1.44) 1.09 (0.95–1.26)a 1.06 (0.97–1.15) 
 Abstract 0.91 (0.42–1.96) 0.33 (0.014–8.10) 1.06 (0.55–2.02) NA 0.95 (0.60–1.52) 1.55 (1.162.071.23 (0.80–1.88) 
Group Mortality MI TVR Stroke MACE TIMI Blush 3 ST-resolution 
Catheter aspiration devices 
 Overall 0.63 (0.430.930.65 (0.37–1.12) 0.83 (0.64–1.08) 3.43 (0.85–13.9) 0.76 (0.620.951.69 (1.26–2.28)a 1.41 (1.211.64)a 
 Published 0.60 (0.390.950.59 (0.32–1.09) 0.89 (0.64–1.22) 2.30 (0.34–15.4) 0.83 (0.65–1.05) 1.54 (1.361.741.34 (1.211.48
 Abstract 0.71 (0.34–1.47) 1.01 (0.26–3.92) 0.72 (0.45–1.14) 5.15 (0.61–43.7) 0.60 (0.380.941.75 (1.042.95)a 1.46 (1.062.03)a 

 
Mechanical thrombectomy devices 
 Overall 1.93 (1.003.720.67 (0.19–2.33) 1.14 (0.43–3.01) 2.67 (0.71–10.0) 1.64 (0.60–4.44)a 1.16 (0.71–1.90)a 1.25 (0.99–1.58)a 
 Published 1.93 (1.003.720.67 (0.19–2.33) 1.14 (0.43–3.01) 2.67 (0.71–10.0) 1.64 (0.60–4.44)a 1.16 (0.71–1.90)a 1.25 (0.99–1.58)a 
 Abstract NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 
Embolic protection devices 
 Overall 0.92 (0.60–1.40) 0.82 (0.44–1.51) 1.04 (0.74–1.47) 0.99 (0.34–2.92) 0.95 (0.69–1.30) 1.18 (1.021.38)a 1.07 (0.98–1.16) 
 Published 0.92 (0.55–1.54) 0.85 (0.45–1.60) 1.07 (0.71–1.62) 0.99 (0.34–2.92) 0.94 (0.61–1.44) 1.09 (0.95–1.26)a 1.06 (0.97–1.15) 
 Abstract 0.91 (0.42–1.96) 0.33 (0.014–8.10) 1.06 (0.55–2.02) NA 0.95 (0.60–1.52) 1.55 (1.162.071.23 (0.80–1.88) 

All values are RR (95% CI). Bold values indicate statistical significance.

CI, confidence interval; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; MI, myocardial infarction; TIMI, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction; TVR, target vessel revascularization; RR, risk ratio.

aDerSimon and Laird random effects model.

Myocardial perfusion

Among studies that examined TIMI blush, a grade of 3 was reported in all studies, except for three studies that reported a grade of 2 or 3 together.23,28,42 Among studies that examined complete ST-segment resolution, four studies reported ST-segment resolution of >50% (instead of 70%),32–35 eight studies reported ST-segment resolution immediately after the procedure20,23,25,26,32–35, and four studies reported ST-segment resolution 90 min after the procedure.13,21,22,28

Among all the studies, the incidence of TIMI blush grade of 3 after revascularization was 53% for adjunctive devices vs. 40% for PCI alone (RR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.20–1.58, P < 0.0001, I2 = 84%, P for bias = 0.06). The incidence of complete ST-segment resolution was 63% for adjunctive devices vs. 53% for PCI alone (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.15–1.41, P < 0.0001, I2 = 69%, P for bias = 0.032). The outcomes of surrogate markers for similar type adjunctive device studies are presented in Table 3.

Discussion

Our analysis of 30 randomized trials in 6415 patients with acute myocardial infarction shows that thrombectomy devices produce heterogeneous clinical outcomes depending on the type of the device used. Cather thrombus aspiration (for example, Export and Pronto) prior to PCI significantly reduces mortality, compared with PCI alone. This translates into ∼59 patients who need to be treated with a thrombus aspiration device to save a life. In contrast, mechanical thrombectomy (for example, AngioJet and X-sizer) appears to significantly increase mortality, with 38 patients who need to be treated to result in an excess death. With the available data, embolic protection devices (for example, GuardWire and FilterWire) appear to neither significantly increase nor decrease the mortality in this setting.

Our findings apply to the studied patient population which is largely individuals with native vessel ST-elevation myocardial infarction who present within a relatively early period (ischaemic range, 2.4–7.9 h). Our findings may not be as applicable to non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, patients who present after 12–24 h of symptom onset, or patients with acute myocardial infarction due to a saphenous vein graft lesion.

The incidence of mortality with PCI alone varied among the trials, although it was highest among the thrombus aspiration studies. This was probably an effect of the TAPAS trial which had the longest follow-up among all the studies (i.e. 12 months). This extended follow-up allowed additional deaths to accrue. The relative increase in mortality with mechanical thrombectomy compared with PCI alone was driven by excess deaths in the AiMI trial; however, the trial investigators did not find a specific device-related explanation for the findings.13 Owing to these concerns, the data safety monitoring board extended the follow-up to 6 months, which documented three excess deaths in each group.

There were eight strokes in the thrombus aspiration studies (seven with aspiration vs. one with PCI alone) and nine strokes in the mechanical thrombectomy studies (seven with thrombectomy vs. two with PCI alone). Although there is insufficient power to fully make a conclusion on this outcome, the trend is worrisome. When the data are combined from these two study groups, there is a significant increase in the risk for stroke with adjunctive thrombectomy (RR = 3.01, P = 0.024). If this association is proved to be true, there are several explanations why it may exist. In the AiMi trial, a significant proportion of the patients had received rescue PCI, which is associated with an increased stroke risk.48 Catheter thrombus aspiration devices can entrain air, and it is also possible that disruption of thrombus may result in proximal as well as distal embolization.

We also explored the association between adjunctive devices and markers of myocardial perfusion: TIMI blush of 3 and complete ST-segment resolution. Among all the studies, there was evidence for significant heterogeneity and publication bias, therefore, we caution against placing too much weight on these outcomes. These surrogate markers were variably defined and reported in the individual trials. The adjudication of these markers is also subjective, such as TIMI blush, which is a visual assessment of myocardial reperfusion. These characteristics probably affect the precision, reproducibility, and validity of these outcomes.

A strength of this analysis is that it studied homogeneous patient populations by grouping together similar type adjunctive devices. Within similar type thrombectomy or embolic protection devices, there was no evidence for heterogeneity (except for moderate heterogeneity with the assessment of MACEs among the mechanical thrombectomy studies). This was important since the analysis of all available studies failed to reveal statistical heterogeneity, even though we felt that there was clinical heterogeneity. For example, the important technical differences between the devices include the fact that embolic protection requires optimal coronary anatomy, especially distally, to deploy a filter or occlusive balloon, while the larger calibre mechanical thrombectomy devices require large and non-tortuous coronary anatomy to be used successfully. If anything, this could have produced a bias against catheter aspiration devices since they were probably used in lesions that would have been prohibitive to mechanical thrombectomy or embolic protection devices.

To maximize the utilization of all available data, we included abstract presentations that have not been subjected to peer-review and scrutiny and may not be as high of quality; however, we felt that this was necessary for two reasons. Including abstracts served as an additional mechanism to evaluate for any potential publication bias (although none was formally detected by statistical testing among the clinical outcomes). The second reason is that the magnitude of treatment effect can be overestimated by analysing only the published data.49

Mechanical aspiration devices represented only a small fraction of the total study weight. Moreover, the mechanical aspiration results were strongly influenced by a single study, the AiMi trial. Therefore, it remains possible that such devices may have a beneficial role in the future. We look forward to update this analysis with the inclusion of future studies examining these types of devices.50 Also needed are studies that specifically address the role of adjunctive devices in saphenous vein grafts during acute myocardial infarction. Our findings do not give any insight into how one adjunctive thrombectomy device performs against another and it should be noted that this study did not analyse patient level data. Lastly, not all study outcomes could be fully analysed due to sparse reporting and inconsistent measurement in variables such as left ventricular function, infarct size, and heart failure. There were only four studies that reported follow up data on left ventricular ejection fraction, which was 55% in the adjunctive device group vs. 54% in the PCI alone group. For rehospitalization due to heart failure, there were data from five studies. This outcome occurred in 8.1 vs. 7.3%, respectively, for the adjunctive device group vs. PCI alone (P = 0.39).

In summary, not all adjunctive thrombectomy devices are similar. Specifically, catheter thrombus aspiration devices appear to be the most attractive group by significantly reducing mortality, compared with PCI alone. This may speak to the relatively unobtrusive, yet effective means of removing thrombus by catheter aspiration. Pending further data, the routine use of mechanical thrombectomy devices should be avoided in the emergent management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction since they appear to increase the mortality. The potential increase in strokes with adjunctive devices also needs to be carefully monitored, and minimized with careful technique where possible. There is no obvious benefit or harm with embolic protection devices; therefore, the coronary utility of these devices remains in the revascularization of saphenous vein grafts in stable patients. TIMI blush grade and ST-segment resolution are limited in their ability to act as surrogate markers and therefore they should not be used solely in place of clinical outcomes in designing future acute myocardial infarction studies. Catheter aspiration of thrombus represents a relatively simple mechanism to improve cardiovascular outcomes including survival in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Conflict of Interest: A.A.B. discloses the following relationships: Honoraria from Boston Scientific and Access Closure. D.L.B. discloses the following relationships: Research Grants (directly to the institution)—Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ethicon, Heartscape, Sanofi Aventis, and The Medicines Company; Honoraria (donated to non-profits for >2 years)—Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Centocor, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Millennium, Paringenix, PDL, Sanofi Aventis, Schering Plough, The Medicines Company, and tns Healthcare; Speaker’s bureau (>2 years ago)—Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi Aventis, and The Medicines Company; Consultant/Advisory Board (donated to non-profits for >2 years)—Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, Centocor, Cogentus, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Johnson & Johnson, McNeil, Medtronic, Millennium, Molecular Insights, Otsuka, Paringenix, PDL, Philips, Portola, Sanofi Aventis, Schering Plough, Scios, Takeda, The Medicines Company, tns Healthcare, and Vertex; Expert testimony regarding clopidogrel (>2 years ago; the compensation was donated to a non-profit organization); Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center currently receives or has received research funding from: Abraxis, Alexion Pharma, AstraZeneca, Atherogenics, Aventis, Biosense Webster, Biosite, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardionet, Centocor, Converge Medical Inc., Cordis, Dr Reddy’s, Edwards Lifesciences, Esperion, GE Medical, Genentech, Gilford, GSK, Guidant, J&J, Kensey-Nash, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Mytogen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orphan Therapeutics, P&G Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sankyo, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough, Scios, St Jude Medical, Takeda, TMC, VasoGenix, and Viacor.

References

1
Bhatt
DL
Topol
EJ
Does creatinine kinase-MB elevation after percutaneous coronary intervention predict outcomes in 2005? Periprocedural cardiac enzyme elevation predicts adverse outcomes
Circulation
 , 
2005
, vol. 
112
 (pg. 
906
-
915
)
2
Henriques
JP
Zijlstra
F
Ottervanger
JP
de Boer
MJ
van ‘t Hof
AW
Hoorntje
JC
Suryapranata
H
Incidence and clinical significance of distal embolization during primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction
Eur Heart J
 , 
2002
, vol. 
23
 (pg. 
1112
-
1117
)
3
Poli
A
Fetiveau
R
Vandoni
P
del Rosso
G
D’Urbano
M
Seveso
G
Cafiero
F
De Servi
S
Integrated analysis of myocardial blush and ST-segment elevation recovery after successful primary angioplasty: real-time grading of microvascular reperfusion and prediction of early and late recovery of left ventricular function
Circulation
 , 
2002
, vol. 
106
 (pg. 
313
-
318
)
4
Ito
H
Maruyama
A
Iwakura
K
Takiuchi
S
Masuyama
T
Hori
M
Higashino
Y
Fujii
K
Minamino
T
Clinical implications of the ‘no reflow’ phenomenon. A predictor of complications and left ventricular remodeling in reperfused anterior wall myocardial infarction
Circulation
 , 
1996
, vol. 
93
 (pg. 
223
-
228
)
5
Stone
GW
Peterson
MA
Lansky
AJ
Dangas
G
Mehran
R
Leon
MB
Impact of normalized myocardial perfusion after successful angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2002
, vol. 
39
 (pg. 
591
-
597
)
6
Baim
DS
Wahr
D
George
B
Leon
MB
Greenberg
J
Cutlip
DE
Kaya
U
Popma
JJ
Ho
KK
Kuntz
RE
Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts
Circulation
 , 
2002
, vol. 
105
 (pg. 
1285
-
1290
)
7
Stone
GW
Rogers
C
Hermiller
J
Feldman
R
Hall
P
Haber
R
Masud
A
Cambier
P
Caputo
RP
Turco
M
Kovach
R
Brodie
B
Herrmann
HC
Kuntz
RE
Popma
JJ
Ramee
S
Cox
DA
Randomized comparison of distal protection with a filter-based catheter and a balloon occlusion and aspiration system during percutaneous intervention of diseased saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts
Circulation
 , 
2003
, vol. 
108
 (pg. 
548
-
553
)
8
Silber
S
Albertsson
P
Aviles
FF
Camici
PG
Colombo
A
Hamm
C
Jorgensen
E
Marco
J
Nordrehaug
JE
Ruzyllo
W
Urban
P
Stone
GW
Wijns
W
Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology
Eur Heart J
 , 
2005
, vol. 
26
 (pg. 
804
-
847
)
9
Smith
SC
Jr
Feldman
TE
Hirshfeld
JW
Jr
Jacobs
AK
Kern
MJ
King
SB
III
Morrison
DA
O’Neil
WW
Schaff
HV
Whitlow
PL
Williams
DO
Antman
EM
Adams
CD
Anderson
JL
Faxon
DP
Fuster
V
Halperin
JL
Hiratzka
LF
Hunt
SA
Nishimura
R
Ornato J
P
Page
RL
Riegel
B
ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)
Circulation
 , 
2006
, vol. 
113
 (pg. 
e166
-
e286
)
10
Kunadian
B
Dunning
J
Vijayalakshmi
K
Thornley
AR
de Belder
MA
Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing anti-embolic devices with standard PCI for improving myocardial reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
 , 
2007
, vol. 
69
 (pg. 
488
-
496
)
11
De Luca
G
Suryapranata
H
Stone
GW
Antoniucci
D
Neumann
FJ
Chiariello
M
Adjunctive mechanical devices to prevent distal embolization in patients undergoing mechanical revascularization for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials
Am Heart J
 , 
2007
, vol. 
153
 (pg. 
343
-
353
)
12
Burzotta
F
Testa
L
Giannico
F
Biondi-Zoccai
GG
Trani
C
Romagnoli
E
Mazzari
M
Mongiardo
R
Siviglia
M
Niccoli
G
De Vita
M
Porto
I
Schiavoni
G
Crea
F
Adjunctive devices in primary or rescue PCI: a meta-analysis of randomized trials
Int J Cardiol
 , 
2008
, vol. 
123
 (pg. 
313
-
321
)
13
Ali
A
Cox
D
Dib
N
Brodie
B
Berman
D
Gupta
N
Browne
K
Iwaoka
R
Azrin
M
Stapleton
D
Setum
C
Popma
J
Rheolytic thrombectomy with percutaneous coronary intervention for infarct size reduction in acute myocardial infarction: 30-day results from a multicenter randomized study
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2006
, vol. 
48
 (pg. 
244
-
252
)
14
van ‘t Hof
AW
Liem
A
Suryapranata
H
Hoorntje
JC
de Boer
MJ
Zijlstra
F
Angiographic assessment of myocardial reperfusion in patients treated with primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: myocardial blush grade. Zwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group
Circulation
 , 
1998
, vol. 
97
 (pg. 
2302
-
2306
)
15
van ‘t Hof
AW
Liem
A
de Boer
MJ
Zijlstra
F
Clinical value of 12-lead electrocardiogram after successful reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Zwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group
Lancet
 , 
1997
, vol. 
350
 (pg. 
615
-
619
)
16
Juni
P
Altman
DG
Egger
M
Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Br Med J
 , 
2001
, vol. 
323
 (pg. 
42
-
46
)
17
Moher
D
Cook
DJ
Eastwood
S
Olkin
I
Rennie
D
Stroup
DF
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses
Lancet
 , 
1999
, vol. 
354
 (pg. 
1896
-
1900
)
18
Svilaas
T
Vlaar
PJ
van der Horst
IC
Diercks
GF
de Smet
BJ
van den Heuvel
AF
Anthonio
RL
Jessurun
GA
Tan
ES
Suurmeijer
AJ
Zijlstra
F
Thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention
N Engl J Med
 , 
2008
, vol. 
358
 (pg. 
557
-
567
)
19
Vlaar
PJ
Svilaas
T
van der Horst
IC
Diercks
GF
Fokkema
ML
de Smet
BJ
van den Heuvel
AF
Anthonio
RL
Jessurun
GA
Tan
ES
Suurmeijer
AJ
Zijlstra
F
Cardiac death and reinfarction after 1 year in the Thrombus Aspiration during Percutaneous coronary intervention in Acute myocardial infarction Study (TAPAS): a 1-year follow-up study
Lancet
 , 
2008
, vol. 
371
 (pg. 
1915
-
1920
)
20
Silva-Orrego
P
Colombo
P
Bigi
R
Gregori
D
Delgado
A
Salvade
P
Oreglia
J
Orrico
P
de Biase
A
Piccalo
G
Bossi
I
Klugmann
S
Thrombus aspiration before primary angioplasty improves myocardial reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction: the DEAR-MI (Dethrombosis to Enhance Acute Reperfusion in Myocardial Infarction) study
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2006
, vol. 
48
 (pg. 
1552
-
1559
)
21
De Luca
L
Sardella
G
Davidson
CJ
De Persio
G
Beraldi
M
Tommasone
T
Mancone
M
Nguyen
BL
Agati
L
Gheorghiade
M
Fedele
F
Impact of intracoronary aspiration thrombectomy during primary angioplasty on left ventricular remodelling in patients with anterior ST elevation myocardial infarction
Heart
 , 
2006
, vol. 
92
 (pg. 
951
-
957
)
22
Kaltoft
A
Bottcher
M
Nielsen
SS
Hansen
HH
Terkelsen
C
Maeng
M
Kristensen
J
Thuesen
L
Krusell
LR
Kristensen
SD
Andersen
HR
Lassen
JF
Rasmussen
K
Rehling
M
Nielsen
TT
Botker
HE
Routine thrombectomy in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized, controlled trial
Circulation
 , 
2006
, vol. 
114
 (pg. 
40
-
47
)
23
Burzotta
F
Trani
C
Romagnoli
E
Mazzari
MA
Rebuzzi
AG
De Vita
M
Garramone
B
Giannico
F
Niccoli
G
Biondi-Zoccai
GG
Schiavoni
G
Mongiardo
R
Crea
F
Manual thrombus-aspiration improves myocardial reperfusion: the randomized evaluation of the effect of mechanical reduction of distal embolization by thrombus-aspiration in primary and rescue angioplasty (REMEDIA) trial
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2005
, vol. 
46
 (pg. 
371
-
376
)
24
Dudek
D
Mielecki
W
Legutko
J
Chyrchel
M
Sorysz
D
Bartus
S
Rzeszutko
L
Dubiel
JS
Percutaneous thrombectomy with the RESCUE system in acute myocardial infarction
Kardiol Pol
 , 
2004
, vol. 
61
 (pg. 
523
-
533
)
25
Dudek
D
Polish-Italian-Hungarian Randomized Thrombectomy Trial PIRHATE Trial.
 
26
Isshiki
T
VAMPIRE (VAcuuM asPIration Thrombus REmoval)
 
27
Noel
B
Morice
MC
Lefevre
T
Garot
P
Tavolaro
O
Louvard
Y
Dumas
P
Thromboaspiration in acute ST elevation MI improves myocardial reperfusion
Circulation
 , 
2005
, vol. 
112
 
Suppl. II
pg. 
519
 
28
Sardella
G
Impact of thrombectomy with EXPort catheter in Infarct Related Artery on procedural and clinical outcome in patients with AMI. (EXPIRA Trial). A prospective, randomized, trial of thromboaspiration during primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction
 
29
Sardella
G
De Luca
L
Mancone
M
De Persio
G
Beraldi
M
Tommasone
T
Berardi
E
Conti
G
Agati
L
Fedele
F
Impact of thromboaspiration device during primary angioplasty on left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction
Circulation
 , 
2005
, vol. 
112
 
Suppl. II
pg. 
519
 
30
Kunii
H
Kijima
M
Araki
T
Tamaki
K
Katoh
A
Kubo
T
Saitou
T
Hirosaka
A
Matsuo
H
Lack of benefit of intracoronary thrombus aspiration before coronary stenting in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a multicenter randomized trial
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2004
, vol. 
43
 
Suppl. A
pg. 
245A
 
31
Chevalier
B
EXPORT study
2007
 
First report—TCT(1 July 2008) http://tctmd.com/Show.aspx?id=54632
32
Lefevre
T
Garcia
E
Reimers
B
Lang
I
di Mario
C
Colombo
A
Neumann
FJ
Chavarri
MV
Brunel
P
Grube
E
Thomas
M
Glatt
B
Ludwig
J
X-sizer for thrombectomy in acute myocardial infarction improves ST-segment resolution: results of the X-sizer in AMI for negligible embolization and optimal ST resolution (X AMINE ST) trial
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2005
, vol. 
46
 (pg. 
246
-
252
)
33
Antoniucci
D
Valenti
R
Migliorini
A
Parodi
G
Memisha
G
Santoro
GM
Sciagra
R
Comparison of rheolytic thrombectomy before direct infarct artery stenting versus direct stenting alone in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction
Am J Cardiol
 , 
2004
, vol. 
93
 (pg. 
1033
-
1035
)
34
Napodano
M
Pasquetto
G
Sacca
S
Cernetti
C
Scarabeo
V
Pascotto
P
Reimers
B
Intracoronary thrombectomy improves myocardial reperfusion in patients undergoing direct angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2003
, vol. 
42
 (pg. 
1395
-
1402
)
35
Beran
G
Lang
I
Schreiber
W
Denk
S
Stefenelli
T
Syeda
B
Maurer
G
Glogar
D
Siostrzonek
P
Intracoronary thrombectomy with the X-sizer catheter system improves epicardial flow and accelerates ST-segment resolution in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a prospective, randomized, controlled study
Circulation
 , 
2002
, vol. 
105
 (pg. 
2355
-
2360
)
36
Kelbaek
H
Terkelsen
CJ
Helqvist
S
Lassen
JF
Clemmensen
P
Klovgaard
L
Kaltoft
A
Engstrom
T
Botker
HE
Saunamaki
K
Krusell
LR
Jorgensen
E
Hansen
HH
Christiansen
EH
Ravkilde
J
Kober
L
Kofoed
KF
Thuesen
L
Randomized comparison of distal protection versus conventional treatment in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the drug elution and distal protection in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (DEDICATION) trial
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2008
, vol. 
51
 (pg. 
899
-
905
)
37
Tahk
SJ
Choi
BJ
Choi
SY
Yoon
MH
Gwon
HC
Hong
GR
Kim
YJ
Hur
SH
Kim
KB
Koo
BK
Lee
SH
Yoon
J
Distal protection device protects microvascular integrity during primary percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial
Int J Cardiol
 , 
2008
, vol. 
123
 (pg. 
162
-
168
)
38
Matsuo
A
Inoue
N
Suzuki
K
Nakamura
R
Fujita
H
Miki
S
Yokoi
Y
Limitations of using a GuardWire temporary occlusion and aspiration system in patients with acute myocardial infarction: multicenter investigation of coronary artery protection with a distal occlusion device in acute myocardial infarction (MICADO)
J Invasive Cardiol
 , 
2007
, vol. 
19
 (pg. 
132
-
138
)
39
Guetta
V
Mosseri
M
Shechter
M
Matetzky
S
Assali
A
Almagor
Y
Gruberg
L
Benderly
M
Lotam
C
Kornowski
R
Safety and efficacy of the FilterWire EZ in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
Am J Cardiol
 , 
2007
, vol. 
99
 (pg. 
911
-
915
)
40
Cura
FA
Escudero
AG
Berrocal
D
Mendiz
O
Trivi
MS
Fernandez
J
Palacios
A
Albertal
M
Piraino
R
Riccitelli
MA
Gruberg
L
Ballarino
M
Milei
J
Baeza
R
Thierer
J
Grinfeld
L
Krucoff
M
O’Neill
W
Belardi
J
Protection of distal Embolization in High-Risk Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (PREMIAR)
Am J Cardiol
 , 
2007
, vol. 
99
 (pg. 
357
-
363
)
41
Ochala
A
Smolka
G
Wojakowski
W
Gabrylewicz
B
Garbocz
P
Tendera
M
Prospective randomised study to evaluate effectiveness of distal embolic protection compared to abciximab administration in reduction of microembolic complications of primary coronary angioplasty
Kardiol Pol
 , 
2007
, vol. 
65
 (pg. 
672
-
680
)
42
Gick
M
Jander
N
Bestehorn
HP
Kienzle
RP
Ferenc
M
Werner
K
Comberg
T
Peitz
K
Zohlnhofer
D
Bassignana
V
Buettner
HJ
Neumann
FJ
Randomized evaluation of the effects of filter-based distal protection on myocardial perfusion and infarct size after primary percutaneous catheter intervention in myocardial infarction with and without ST-segment elevation
Circulation
 , 
2005
, vol. 
112
 (pg. 
1462
-
1469
)
43
Stone
GW
Webb
J
Cox
DA
Brodie
BR
Qureshi
M
Kalynych
A
Turco
M
Schultheiss
HP
Dulas
D
Rutherford
BD
Antoniucci
D
Krucoff
MW
Gibbons
RJ
Jones
D
Lansky
AJ
Mehran
R
Distal microcirculatory protection during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial
J Am Med Assoc
 , 
2005
, vol. 
293
 (pg. 
1063
-
1072
)
44
Lefevere
T
Guyon
P
Reimers
B
Fauvel
JM
Pansieri
M
Dewez
MP
Distal protection in acute myocardial infarction: final results of the randomized DIPLOMATE study
Eur Heart J
 , 
2004
, vol. 
25
 
Suppl.
pg. 
420
 
45
Wang
L
Nguyen
T
Yang
X
Yang
C
Distal protection with Angioguard during PCI for acute myocardial infarction
Am J Cardiol
 , 
2003
, vol. 
92
 
Suppl. 6A
pg. 
38L
 
46
Muramatsu
T
The Japanese ASPARAGUS Trial ASPiration of Liberated Debris in Acute MI with GUardWire Plus System
 
47
Nanasato
M
Hirayama
H
Muramatsu
T
Unno
K
Shimano
M
Matsushita
K
Takezawa
H
Yokota
M
Murohara
T
Impact of angioplasty with distal protection device on myocardial reperfusion
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2004
, vol. 
43
 
Suppl. 1
pg. 
246A
 
48
Patel
TN
Bavry
AA
Kumbhani
DJ
Ellis
SG
A meta-analysis of randomized trials of rescue percutaneous coronary intervention after failed fibrinolysis
Am J Cardiol
 , 
2006
, vol. 
97
 (pg. 
1685
-
1690
)
49
Cook
DJ
Guyatt
GH
Ryan
G
Clifton
J
Buckingham
L
Willan
A
McIlroy
W
Oxman
AD
Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies
J Am Med Assoc
 , 
1993
, vol. 
269
 (pg. 
2749
-
2753
)
50
Antoniucci
D
Rheolytic thrombectomy in acute myocardial infarction: the Florence experience and objectives of the multicenter randomized JETSTENT trial
J Invasive Cardiol
 , 
2006
, vol. 
18
 
Suppl. C
(pg. 
32C
-
34C
)

Supplementary data

Comments

0 Comments