1. Impact of Distal Protection with Filter-Type Device on Long-term Outcome after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Results with Filtrap®
- Author
-
Ryota Teramoto, Toshihiko Yasuda, Takao Matsubara, Masakazu Yamagishi, Kenji Sakata, Kenshi Hayashi, Masa-aki Kawashiri, Kenji Miwa, Honin Kanaya, Hirofumi Okada, and Masaru Inoue
- Subjects
Cardiac function curve ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Multivariate analysis ,business.industry ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Biochemistry (medical) ,Percutaneous coronary intervention ,Odds ratio ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,medicine.disease ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Heart failure ,Internal medicine ,Conventional PCI ,Internal Medicine ,medicine ,Cardiology ,cardiovascular diseases ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Myocardial infarction ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Mace - Abstract
Aim Although distal embolization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) deteriorates cardiac function, whether distal protection (DP) can improve prognosis is still controversial. We investigated whether a filter-type DP device, Filtrap®, could improve long-term outcomes after PCI for AMI. Method We studied 164 patients (130 men, mean age: 65.7 years) who underwent PCI. Patients were divided into two groups based on the use of Filtrap®. The occurrence of congestive heart failure (CHF) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, recurrent AMI, and target vessel revascularization were compared. Result Between DP (n=53, 41 men, mean age: 65.5 years) and non-DP (n=111, 89 men, mean age: 65.8 years) groups, although there was significantly greater plaque area in the DP group than in the non-DP group, there were no significant differences in coronary reperfusion flow after PCI. Interestingly, patients with CHF in the non-DP group exhibited a higher CK level than those in the DP group. During a 2-year follow-up period, cumulative CHF was significantly lower in the DP group than in the non-DP group (log-rank p=0.018), and there was no significant difference in the MACE rate (log-rank p=0.238). The use of DP device could not predict MACE, but could predict CHF by multivariate analysis (odds ratio=0.099, 95% CI: 0.02-0.42, p=0.005). Conclusion These results demonstrate that favorable clinical outcomes could be achieved by the filter-type DP device in AMI, particularly in patients with CHF.
- Published
- 2016