Margheri Massimo, Falai Massimiliano, Vittori Guido, Zoccai Giuseppe G L Biondi, Chechi Tania, Ricceri Ilaria, Falchetti Elena, Comeglio Marco, Giglioli Cristina, Valente Serafina, Gensini Gian Franco
Heart and Vessel Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.
J Invasive Cardiol. 2006 Oct;18(10):481-6.
To assess the safety and efficacy of the AngioJet coronary device, given the uncertain risk-benefit balance of rheolytic thrombectomy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Current risk of inadequate myocardial perfusion for thrombus embolization in primary coronary interventions is not negligible. The AngioJet thrombectomy device showed promising results in terms of safety and efficacy, but failed to confirm them in a large, multicenter, randomized trial, and the risk-benefit balance is still uncertain.
The AngioJet device was employed in 116 consecutive patients with AMI and angiographic evidence of extensive thrombosis in a vessel with a reference diameter > 2.5 mm. Stents and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were liberally used. Epicardial and myocardial reperfusion angiographic parameters, and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE, i.e., cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) were assessed.
The AngioJet was successfully used in all patients. Angiographic analysis showed that the AngioJet significantly improved epicardial coronary flow (p < 0.01), frame count (p < 0.01) and myocardial blush (p < 0.01), while stenting yielded significant improvements only in diameter stenosis, minimum lesion diameter and correlated vessel parameters (p < 0.01). In-hospital MACE were uncommon [9 (8%)], despite the patientsO characteristics. When compared to an AMI population with similar thrombus burden but not undergoing thrombectomy, our AngioJet population showed significant improvement of reperfusion parameters. Moreover, there was greater AngioJet benefit in the high versus moderate thrombus burden subset; laboratory and operator experience also correlated significantly with final angiographic results.
Our study supports the favorable risk-benefit profile of AngioJet device use in selected patients with AMI when used in experienced laboratories and by trained operators.
鉴于急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者中血栓溶解切除术的风险效益平衡尚不确定,评估AngioJet冠状动脉装置的安全性和有效性。
在原发性冠状动脉介入治疗中,目前因血栓栓塞导致心肌灌注不足的风险不可忽视。AngioJet血栓切除术装置在安全性和有效性方面显示出有前景的结果,但在一项大型、多中心、随机试验中未能得到证实,其风险效益平衡仍不确定。
对116例连续的AMI患者使用AngioJet装置,这些患者血管造影显示参考直径>2.5mm的血管中有广泛血栓形成。大量使用支架和糖蛋白IIb/IIIa抑制剂。评估心外膜和心肌再灌注血管造影参数以及院内主要不良心脏事件(MACE,即心源性死亡、心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建)。
所有患者均成功使用了AngioJet装置。血管造影分析显示,AngioJet显著改善了心外膜冠状动脉血流(p<0.01)、帧数(p<0.01)和心肌显影(p<0.01),而支架置入仅在直径狭窄、最小病变直径和相关血管参数方面有显著改善(p<0.01)。尽管患者有这些特征,但院内MACE并不常见[9例(8%)]。与血栓负荷相似但未接受血栓切除术的AMI人群相比,我们使用AngioJet的人群再灌注参数有显著改善。此外,在高血栓负荷亚组中AngioJet的益处更大;实验室和操作人员的经验也与最终血管造影结果显著相关。
我们的研究支持在经验丰富的实验室由训练有素的操作人员对选定的AMI患者使用AngioJet装置具有良好的风险效益比。