Adjunctive Devices for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Adjunctive Proximal Balloon Embolic Protection Devices Versus PCI Alone in Patients With STEMI: All Outcomes and Adverse Events
In RCTs, the use of proximal balloon embolic protection devices did not significantly impact mortality, MI, stroke, or MACE versus a control when using the longest duration of followup. In RCTs, the use of proximal balloon embolic protection devices did not significantly impact ST-segment resolution, MBG-3, TIMI-3 blood flow, distal embolization, or ejection fraction versus a control with no data on the other intermediate health outcomes. No studies or trials evaluated the use of proximal balloon embolic protection devices in patients with mixed ACS. In one RCT, the use of a proximal balloon embolic protection device versus a control significantly prolonged procedure time. No other trials or studies evaluated the impact of proximal balloon embolic protection devices versus a control on adverse events of interest.
- Haeck JD, Koch KT, Bilodeau L, et al. Randomized comparison of primary percutaneous coronary intervention with combined proximal embolic protection and thrombus aspiration versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the PREPARE (PRoximal Embolic Protection in Acute myocardial infarction and Resolution of STElevation) study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:934-43. PMID: 19850252.
- Sobieraj DM, White CM, Kluger J, et al. Adjunctive Devices for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 42 (Prepared by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10067-I). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; December 2011. AHRQ Publication No. 11(12)-EHC089-EF. Available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/thrombusacs.cfm.
Your slide tray is being processed.