Role of Embolic Protection in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Without Saphenous Venous Graft Lesions in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Recommended Citation
Maliha M, Satish V, Chi KY, Zeas DB, Kharawala A, Shama N, Abittan N, Nandy S, Osabutey A, Madan N, Singh P, and Gashi E. Role of Embolic Protection in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Without Saphenous Venous Graft Lesions in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit Pathw Cardiol 2025; 24(1):e0376.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
3-1-2025
Publication Title
Crit Pathw Cardiol
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Embolic protection devices (EPDs) are catheter-based devices that can be used to capture atherosclerotic remnants released during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aim to study the efficacy and safety of EPDs in PCIs without saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (MI).
METHODS: Three electronic databases of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from inception to April 10, 2024, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of patients subjected to EPD during PCI with a control group where EPDs were not utilized. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 30 days, post-PCI thrombolysis in MI grade 3 flow attainment, ST-segment resolution at 90 minutes post-procedure, and postprocedure angiographically detectable signs of distal embolization. The effect estimates of outcomes were assessed using risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using the restricted maximum likelihood method, given that the interstudy variance was inevitable.
RESULTS: We included 3 randomized controlled trials enrolling 741 patients (age, 61.6 ± 12.15 years; 22% females) undergoing PCI without SVG lesions. As opposed to the control group, the use of EPD did not yield a significant effect on all-cause mortality [RR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.31-1.86); I 2 = 0%], major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [RR, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.34-1.27); I 2 = 0%], post-PCI thrombolysis in MI 3 flow [RR, 1.18 (95% CI, 0.86-1.62); I 2 = 77%], and ST-segment resolution at 90 minutes post-procedure [RR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.90-1.22); I 2 = 0%]. However, EPD significantly decreased angiographically detectable signs of distal embolization [RR, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.36-0.99); I 2 = 0%].
CONCLUSIONS: EPD significantly reduced angiographically detectable signs of distal embolization in PCI without SVG lesions in ST-segment-elevation MI though there were no clinical signs of improved flow or mortality. Further trials are necessary to thoroughly evaluate the potential benefits and requirements of EPD usage in such procedures.
Medical Subject Headings
Humans; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Embolic Protection Devices; ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction; Saphenous Vein; Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed ID
39345009
Volume
24
Issue
1
First Page
0376
Last Page
0376