急性心肌梗死中的压力控制间歇性冠状动脉窦闭塞(PiCSO):PiCSO-AMI-I 试验

IF 6.1 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions Pub Date : 2024-04-16 DOI:10.1161/circinterventions.123.013675
Giovanni Luigi De Maria, John P. Greenwood, Azfar G. Zaman, Didier Carrié, Pierre Coste, Marco Valgimigli, Miles Behan, Colin Berry, Andrejs Erglis, Vasileios F. Panoulas, Eric Van Belle, Christian Juhl Terkelsen, Lukas Hunziker Munsch, Ajay K. Jain, Jens Flensted Lassen, Nick Palmer, Gregg W. Stone, Adrian P. Banning
{"title":"急性心肌梗死中的压力控制间歇性冠状动脉窦闭塞(PiCSO):PiCSO-AMI-I 试验","authors":"Giovanni Luigi De Maria, John P. Greenwood, Azfar G. Zaman, Didier Carrié, Pierre Coste, Marco Valgimigli, Miles Behan, Colin Berry, Andrejs Erglis, Vasileios F. Panoulas, Eric Van Belle, Christian Juhl Terkelsen, Lukas Hunziker Munsch, Ajay K. Jain, Jens Flensted Lassen, Nick Palmer, Gregg W. Stone, Adrian P. Banning","doi":"10.1161/circinterventions.123.013675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND:Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has improved clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. However, as many as 50% of patients still have suboptimal myocardial reperfusion and experience extensive myocardial necrosis. The PiCSO-AMI-I trial (Pressure-Controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion-Acute Myocardial Infarction-I) evaluated whether PiCSO therapy can further reduce myocardial infarct size (IS) in patients undergoing pPCI.METHODS:Patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0-1 were randomized at 16 European centers to PiCSO-assisted pPCI or conventional pPCI. The PiCSO Impulse Catheter (8Fr balloon-tipped catheter) was inserted via femoral venous access after antegrade flow restoration of the culprit vessel and before proceeding with stenting. The primary end point was the difference in IS (expressed as a percentage of left ventricular mass) at 5 days by cardiac magnetic resonance. Secondary end points were the extent of microvascular obstruction and intramyocardial hemorrhage at 5 days and IS at 6 months.RESULTS:Among 145 randomized patients, 72 received PiCSO-assisted pPCI and 73 conventional pPCI. No differences were observed in IS at 5 days (27.2%±12.4% versus 28.3%±11.45%; <i>P</i>=0.59) and 6 months (19.2%±10.1% versus 18.8%±7.7%; <i>P</i>=0.83), nor were differences between PiCSO-treated and control patients noted in terms of the occurrence of microvascular obstruction (67.2% versus 64.6%; <i>P</i>=0.85) or intramyocardial hemorrhage (55.7% versus 60%; <i>P</i>=0.72). The study was prematurely discontinued by the sponsor with no further clinical follow-up beyond 6 months. However, up to 6 months of PiCSO use appeared safe with no device-related adverse events.CONCLUSIONS:In this prematurely discontinued randomized trial, PiCSO therapy as an adjunct to pPCI did not reduce IS when compared with conventional pPCI in patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. PiCSO use was associated with increased procedural time and contrast but no increase in adverse events up to 6 months.REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03625869.","PeriodicalId":10330,"journal":{"name":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pressure-Controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion (PiCSO) in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PiCSO-AMI-I Trial\",\"authors\":\"Giovanni Luigi De Maria, John P. Greenwood, Azfar G. Zaman, Didier Carrié, Pierre Coste, Marco Valgimigli, Miles Behan, Colin Berry, Andrejs Erglis, Vasileios F. Panoulas, Eric Van Belle, Christian Juhl Terkelsen, Lukas Hunziker Munsch, Ajay K. Jain, Jens Flensted Lassen, Nick Palmer, Gregg W. Stone, Adrian P. Banning\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/circinterventions.123.013675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND:Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has improved clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. However, as many as 50% of patients still have suboptimal myocardial reperfusion and experience extensive myocardial necrosis. The PiCSO-AMI-I trial (Pressure-Controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion-Acute Myocardial Infarction-I) evaluated whether PiCSO therapy can further reduce myocardial infarct size (IS) in patients undergoing pPCI.METHODS:Patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0-1 were randomized at 16 European centers to PiCSO-assisted pPCI or conventional pPCI. The PiCSO Impulse Catheter (8Fr balloon-tipped catheter) was inserted via femoral venous access after antegrade flow restoration of the culprit vessel and before proceeding with stenting. The primary end point was the difference in IS (expressed as a percentage of left ventricular mass) at 5 days by cardiac magnetic resonance. Secondary end points were the extent of microvascular obstruction and intramyocardial hemorrhage at 5 days and IS at 6 months.RESULTS:Among 145 randomized patients, 72 received PiCSO-assisted pPCI and 73 conventional pPCI. No differences were observed in IS at 5 days (27.2%±12.4% versus 28.3%±11.45%; <i>P</i>=0.59) and 6 months (19.2%±10.1% versus 18.8%±7.7%; <i>P</i>=0.83), nor were differences between PiCSO-treated and control patients noted in terms of the occurrence of microvascular obstruction (67.2% versus 64.6%; <i>P</i>=0.85) or intramyocardial hemorrhage (55.7% versus 60%; <i>P</i>=0.72). The study was prematurely discontinued by the sponsor with no further clinical follow-up beyond 6 months. However, up to 6 months of PiCSO use appeared safe with no device-related adverse events.CONCLUSIONS:In this prematurely discontinued randomized trial, PiCSO therapy as an adjunct to pPCI did not reduce IS when compared with conventional pPCI in patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. PiCSO use was associated with increased procedural time and contrast but no increase in adverse events up to 6 months.REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03625869.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.123.013675\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.123.013675","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:原发性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(pPCI)改善了ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者的临床疗效。然而,仍有多达 50% 的患者心肌再灌注效果不佳,并出现大面积心肌坏死。PiCSO-AMI-I试验(Pressure-Controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion-Acute Myocardial Infarction-I)评估了PiCSO疗法能否进一步缩小接受pPCI患者的心肌梗死面积(IS)。PiCSO脉冲导管(8Fr球囊顶端导管)是在罪魁祸首血管逆行血流恢复后,通过股静脉入路插入,然后再进行支架植入术。主要终点是 5 天后通过心脏磁共振测量的 IS 差异(以左心室质量百分比表示)。结果:在 145 位随机患者中,72 位接受了 PiCSO 辅助的 pPCI,73 位接受了传统的 pPCI。在 5 天(27.2%±12.4% 对 28.3%±11.45%;P=0.59)和 6 个月(19.2%±10.1% 对 18.8%±7.7%;P=0.83)的 IS 和微血管阻塞发生率(67.2% 对 64.6%;P=0.85)或心肌内出血发生率(55.7% 对 60%;P=0.72)方面,PiCSO 治疗患者和对照组患者之间未发现差异。赞助商提前终止了这项研究,6 个月后不再进行临床随访。结论:在这项提前终止的随机试验中,与传统的 pPCI 相比,PiCSO 作为 pPCI 的辅助治疗并不能减少前 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者的 IS。使用 PiCSO 会增加手术时间和造影剂用量,但 6 个月内的不良事件并未增加:NCT03625869。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pressure-Controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion (PiCSO) in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PiCSO-AMI-I Trial
BACKGROUND:Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has improved clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. However, as many as 50% of patients still have suboptimal myocardial reperfusion and experience extensive myocardial necrosis. The PiCSO-AMI-I trial (Pressure-Controlled Intermittent Coronary Sinus Occlusion-Acute Myocardial Infarction-I) evaluated whether PiCSO therapy can further reduce myocardial infarct size (IS) in patients undergoing pPCI.METHODS:Patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0-1 were randomized at 16 European centers to PiCSO-assisted pPCI or conventional pPCI. The PiCSO Impulse Catheter (8Fr balloon-tipped catheter) was inserted via femoral venous access after antegrade flow restoration of the culprit vessel and before proceeding with stenting. The primary end point was the difference in IS (expressed as a percentage of left ventricular mass) at 5 days by cardiac magnetic resonance. Secondary end points were the extent of microvascular obstruction and intramyocardial hemorrhage at 5 days and IS at 6 months.RESULTS:Among 145 randomized patients, 72 received PiCSO-assisted pPCI and 73 conventional pPCI. No differences were observed in IS at 5 days (27.2%±12.4% versus 28.3%±11.45%; P=0.59) and 6 months (19.2%±10.1% versus 18.8%±7.7%; P=0.83), nor were differences between PiCSO-treated and control patients noted in terms of the occurrence of microvascular obstruction (67.2% versus 64.6%; P=0.85) or intramyocardial hemorrhage (55.7% versus 60%; P=0.72). The study was prematurely discontinued by the sponsor with no further clinical follow-up beyond 6 months. However, up to 6 months of PiCSO use appeared safe with no device-related adverse events.CONCLUSIONS:In this prematurely discontinued randomized trial, PiCSO therapy as an adjunct to pPCI did not reduce IS when compared with conventional pPCI in patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. PiCSO use was associated with increased procedural time and contrast but no increase in adverse events up to 6 months.REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03625869.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
221
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, an American Heart Association journal, focuses on interventional techniques pertaining to coronary artery disease, structural heart disease, and vascular disease, with priority placed on original research and on randomized trials and large registry studies. In addition, pharmacological, diagnostic, and pathophysiological aspects of interventional cardiology are given special attention in this online-only journal.
期刊最新文献
Stroke Prevention With Prophylactic Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Cardiac Surgery Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Propensity-Score Studies. Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: The Evidence Is Mounting. Microvascular Resistance Reserve Predicts Myocardial Ischemia and Response to Therapy in Patients With Angina and Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries. Enhancing Guidewire Efficacy for Trans-radial Access: The EAGER Randomized Controlled Trial. Correction to: Consensus Statement on the Management of Nonthrombotic Iliac Vein Lesions From the VIVA Foundation, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1