Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62(16):1409-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.025. Epub 2013 May 9.
This meta-analysis was designed to update data on clinical outcomes with aspiration thrombectomy or mechanical thrombectomy before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with conventional primary PCI alone.
The clinical efficacy of thrombectomy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains uncertain.
Clinical trials that randomized AMI patients to aspiration (18 trials, n = 3,936) or mechanical thrombectomy (7 trials, n = 1,598) before PCI compared with conventional PCI alone were included.
The weighted mean duration of clinical follow-up was 6 months. Aspiration thrombectomy vs. conventional primary PCI (18 trials, n=3,936): Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (risk ratio [RR]: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 0.92; p = 0.006) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.99; p = 0.049) were significantly reduced with aspiration thrombectomy. Beneficial trends were noted for recurrent MI (p = 0.11) and target vessel revascularization (p = 0.06). Final infarct size (p = 0.64) and ejection fraction (p = 0.32) at 1 month were similar. ST-segment resolution (STR) at 60 min (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.48; p < 0.0001) and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction blush grade (TBG) 3 post-procedure (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.59; p < 0.0001) were both improved with aspiration thrombectomy. Mechanical thrombectomy vs. conventional primary PCI (7 trials, n = 1,598): there was no difference between the mechanical thrombectomy and conventional primary PCI arms in the incidence of MACE (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.59 to 2.05; p = 0.77), mortality (p = 0.57), recurrent MI (p = 0.32), target vessel revascularization (p = 0.19), or final infarct size (p = 0.47). A benefit in STR at 60 min (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.47; p = 0.007), but not TBG 3 (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.38; p = 0.48) was noted.
Thrombectomy during AMI by manual catheter aspiration, but not mechanically, is beneficial in reducing MACE, including mortality, at 6 to 12 months compared with conventional primary PCI alone.
本荟萃分析旨在更新数据,以了解在直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)前进行抽吸血栓切除术或机械血栓切除术与单纯常规直接 PCI 相比的临床结局。
血栓切除术在急性心肌梗死(AMI)中的临床疗效仍不确定。
纳入了将 AMI 患者随机分为抽吸组(18 项试验,n=3936)或机械血栓切除术组(7 项试验,n=1598)在 PCI 前进行治疗,与单纯常规 PCI 比较的临床试验。
加权平均临床随访时间为 6 个月。抽吸血栓切除术与常规直接 PCI(18 项试验,n=3936)相比:主要不良心脏事件(MACE)(风险比[RR]:0.76;95%置信区间[CI]:0.63 至 0.92;p=0.006)和全因死亡率(RR:0.71;95%CI:0.51 至 0.99;p=0.049)显著降低。复发性心肌梗死(p=0.11)和靶血管血运重建(p=0.06)有获益趋势。1 个月时的最终梗死面积(p=0.64)和射血分数(p=0.32)相似。60 分钟时 ST 段缓解(RR:1.31;95%CI:1.16 至 1.48;p<0.0001)和术后血栓溶解心肌梗死(TIMI)血流分级 3(RR:1.37;95%CI:1.19 至 1.59;p<0.0001)均得到改善。机械血栓切除术与常规直接 PCI(7 项试验,n=1598)相比:机械血栓切除术与常规直接 PCI 组之间在 MACE 发生率(RR:1.10;95%CI:0.59 至 2.05;p=0.77)、死亡率(p=0.57)、复发性心肌梗死(p=0.32)、靶血管血运重建(p=0.19)或最终梗死面积(p=0.47)方面无差异。在 60 分钟时 ST 段缓解(RR:1.25;95%CI:1.06 至 1.47;p=0.007)有获益,但 TIMI 血流分级 3 无获益(RR:1.09;95%CI:0.86 至 1.38;p=0.48)。
与单纯常规直接 PCI 相比,AMI 时手动导管抽吸血栓切除术,而不是机械血栓切除术,可在 6 至 12 个月时降低 MACE,包括死亡率。