1 / 12

‘SMASH IT!’

‘SMASH IT!’. Mark Mason Interventional Cardiologist Harefield Hospital Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust. Background. Coronary occlusion in AMI comprises a variable amount of thrombus

adin
Télécharger la présentation

‘SMASH IT!’

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ‘SMASH IT!’ Mark Mason Interventional Cardiologist Harefield Hospital Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  2. Background • Coronary occlusion in AMI comprises a variable amount of thrombus • Evidence suggests that the degree of thrombus burden has an influence on prognosis (JACC 2007;50:573-83) • Simply balloon dilating and stenting seems counter-intuitive in this context • Do mechanical devices offer any greater thombus clearance than simple aspiration devices, and do they confer any clinical benefit?

  3. ThromCat • ‘Smash and suck’ type device • High pressure jets ‘smash’ and internal ‘Archimedes screw’ draws in the debris • Doesn’t require large permanent console- pack contains all that’s needed (other than some saline)

  4. ThromCat • Safety study presented at EuroPCR 2007 demonstrating safety and efficacy • No randomised controlled trials • Relatively easy to use (I said relatively!) • Good anecdotal results

  5. X-Sizer • ‘Suck and smash’ type device • Helical cutter in tip generates a vacuum and then acts as an ‘Archimedes screw’ to break up the thrombus and draw it in • Again, no large console- all required equipment contained in disposable pack

  6. X-Sizer • Randomised controlled data available- • X AMINE ST trial (JACC 2005;46(2):246-52): • 201 pts with AMI randomised to X-Sizer vs. conventional PCI • Significantly higher overall ST resolution and >50% ST resolution • Significant reduction in distal embolisation • No difference in TIMI score, myocardial blush, or 6 month event rates

  7. Angiojet • ‘Smash and suck’ type device • Requires large permanent console with additional disposable catheters

  8. AngioJet Catheter- Mechanism of Action Saline jets travel backwards at half the speed of sound to create a low pressure zone. Thrombus is drawn into the catheter where it is fragmented by the jets and evacuated from the body.

  9. Angiojet • Data variable- • AiMI trial (JACC 2006;48(2):244-52) • Angiojet vs. conventional PCI: • Higher final infarct size • Lower TIMI 3 rate • Higher MACE • Higher 30-day mortality In the Angiojet group! • WHY? • Patients enrolled post-angio and did not require angiographic evidence of thrombus! • Clearly cannot support routine use in AMI patients

  10. So what are we supposed to do? • De Luca et al- meta-analysis of 21 studies involving ‘rheolytic thrombectomy’ devices, simple aspiration devices, and distal protection devices (Am Heart J 2007;153(3):343-53) • Improved TIMI grade, better myocardial blush grade, reduced distal embolisation, no difference in mortality • No evidence that use of these devices confers a survival benefit (?TAPAS)

  11. Should we bother at all then? • Mortality is obviously important, but it is also commonly measured because it is an easy ‘hard’ endpoint to assess • The long term impact of significant infarcts is clear to us as clinicians, but few have the will, nor the resources, to assess the morbidity associated with such scenarios

  12. Do we use them or not? • All three devices appear to be safe • Routine use in AMI/rescue cannot be justified • IMHO, they remain a useful adjunct to conventional modalities in highly selected cases and may make a difference • No evidence exists to guide the choice of device

More Related