Evidence Hub

Safety and efficacy of thrombectomy in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST elevation MI: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Tamhane UU, Chetcuti S, Hameed I, Grossman PM, Moscucci M, Gurm HS

BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2010

3,909 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials comparing thrombectomy devices with conventional percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have produced conflicting results. The objective of our study was to systematically evaluate currently available data comparing thrombectomy followed by PCI with conventional PCI alone in patients with acute STEMI.

METHODS: Seventeen randomized trials (n = 3,909 patients) of thrombectomy versus PCI were included in this meta-analysis. We calculated the summary odds ratios for mortality, stroke, post procedural myocardial blush grade (MBG), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade flow, and post procedural ST segment resolution (STR) using random-effects and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS: There was no difference in risk of 30-day mortality (44/1914 vs. 50/1907, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54-1.29, P = 0.42) among patients randomized to thrombectomy, compared with conventional PCI. Thrombectomy was associated with a significantly greater likelihood of TIMI 3 flow (1616/1826 vs. 1533/1806, OR 1.41, P = 0.007), MBG 3 (730/1526 vs. 486/1513, OR 2.42, P < 0.001), STR (923/1500 vs. 715/1494, OR 2.30, P < 0.001), and with a higher risk of stroke (14/1403 vs. 3/1413, OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.06-7.85, P = 0.04). Outcomes differed significantly between different device classes with a trend towards lower mortality with manual aspiration thrombectomy (MAT) (21/949 vs.36/953, OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-1.01, P = 0.05),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,909 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free