Mattichak Stephen J, Dixon Simon R, Safian Robert D, Hanzel George S, Boura Judith A, O'Neill William W
William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA.
J Interv Cardiol. 2005 Aug;18(4):249-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2005.00040.x.
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.
尽管人们对在急性心肌梗死中使用栓子保护装置充满热情，但尚不清楚这些装置在未经过筛选的患者中能够使用的频率。本研究的目的是评估在连续的、未经过筛选的人群中，在初次或补救性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗期间使用近端或远端栓子保护装置的潜在适用性。我们分析了259例连续的ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者的血管造影结果，以确定使用这两种类型保护装置的适用性。总体而言，202例（78%）患者的解剖结构适合使用栓子保护装置，其中154例（59%）适合近端保护，128例（49%）适合远端保护，80例（31%）适合两种装置。适合近端保护的患者更有可能罪犯血管为右冠状动脉，而适合远端保护的患者更有可能病变位于左前降支冠状动脉。
