Adjunctive mechanical devices to prevent distal embolization in patients undergoing mechanical revascularization for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND

The benefits of adjunctive mechanical devices to prevent distal embolization in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are still a matter of debate. The aim of this meta-analysis was to combine data from all randomized trials conducted with adjunctive mechanical devices to prevent distal embolization in AMI.

METHODS

The literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and Central) from January 1990 to October 2006, scientific session abstracts (from January 1990 to October 2006), and oral presentation and/or expert slide presentations (from January 2002 to October 2006) (on the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and European Percutaneous Revascularization Web sites). We examined all randomized trials on adjunctive mechanical devices to prevent distal embolization in AMI. The following key words were used: randomized trial, myocardial infarction, reperfusion, primary angioplasty, rescue angioplasty, thrombectomy, thrombus aspiration, proximal or distal protection device, X-sizer, Diver, Export Catheter, Angiojet, Rescue catheter, Pronto catheter, PercuSurge, GuardWire, FilterWire, and SpideRX. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

A total of 21 trials with 3721 patients were included (1877 patients [50.4%] in the adjunctive mechanical device group and 1844 [49.6%] in the control group); 1502 patients (40.3%) were randomized in trials with distal protection devices, and 2219 patients (59.7%) were randomized in trials with thrombectomy devices. Adjunctive mechanical devices were associated with a higher rate of postprocedural TIMI 3 flow (89.4% vs 87.1%, P = .03), a significantly higher rate of postprocedural myocardial blush grade 3 (48.8% vs 36.5%, P < .0001), and less distal embolization (6.0% vs 9.3%, P = .008), without any benefit in terms of 30-day mortality (2.5% vs 2.6%, P = .88). No difference was observed in terms of coronary perforations (0.27% vs 0.07%, P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrates that, among patients with AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention, the use of adjunctive mechanical devices to prevent distal embolization is associated with better myocardial perfusion and less distal embolization, but without an apparent improvement in survival.