Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of intracoronary pro-urokinase combined with low-pressure balloon pre-dilatation during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Yu S, Jia H, Ding S, Zhang M, Li F, Xu P, Tian Y, Ma L et al.

Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024

179 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: The efficacy and safety of low-pressure balloon pre-dilatation before intracoronary pro-urokinase (pro-UK) in preventing no-reflow during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of intracoronary pro-UK combined with low-pressure balloon pre-dilatation in patients with anterior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Methods: This was a randomized, single-blind, investigator-initiated trial that included 179 patients diagnosed with acute anterior STEMI. All patients were eligible for PCI and were randomized into two groups: intracoronary pro-UK combined with (ICPpD group, n = 90) or without (ICP group, n = 89) low-pressure balloon pre-dilatation. The main efficacy endpoint was complete epicardial and myocardial reperfusion. The safety endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), which were analyzed at 12 months follow-up.

Results: Patients in the ICPpD group presented significantly higher TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3 (TMPG3) compared to those in the ICP group (77.78% versus 68.54%, P = 0.013), and STR ≥ 70% after PCI 30 min (34.44% versus 26.97%, P = 0.047) or after PCI 90 min (40.0% versus 31.46%, P = 0.044). MACEs occurred in 23 patients (25.56%) in the ICPpD group and in 32 patients (35.96%) in the ICP group. There was no difference in hemorrhagic complications during hospitalization between the groups.

Conclusion: Patients with acute anterior STEMI presented…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 179 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