Intracoronary pharmacological therapy versus aspiration thrombectomy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (IPAT-STEMI): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background Large thrombus load remains a challenge in the interventional cardiology practice. It precludes direct stent implementation and aggravates coronary obstruction leading to impaired myocardial perfusion, worsened cardiac function, and adverse clinical outcomes. Thus, various strategies have been advocated such as aspiration thrombectomy (AT), and/or localized or intracoronary (IC) treatment with thrombolytic agents and/or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI). Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of IC-administered pharmacological agents alone or combined with AT compared with AT alone as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in STEMI patients with large thrombus burden. Methods The method was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. A systematic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRALE, Scopus, ProQuest Public Health, Web of Science databases was performed on February 22, 2020 and updated on February 13, 2021. Eligible trials were randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing IC-administered thrombolytic agents and/or GPI with or without AT to AT alone in patients presenting with STEMI who underwent PCI. The primary outcomes included coronary reperfusion indices e.g., thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3 (G3), TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) 3, Myocardial blush grade (MBG) 2/3, ST-segment resolution (STR). Others included clinical outcomes e.g., major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results Twelve RCT enrolled 1,466 patients were included in the final analysis. The trials were categorized into 3 groups: (1) Thrombolytics [4 RCT], (2) GPI [3 RCT], and (3) GPI+AT [7 RCT]. Groups 2 and 3 included two mutual studies with multiple arms. In comparison with AT alone, thrombolytic therapy, as presented in four RCT, significantly improved TIMI flow G3 (OR = 3.71, 95% CI: 1.85–7.45; P overall effect = 0.0002; heterogeneity = 0%), complete STR (OR = 3.64, 95% CI: 1.60–8.26; P overall effect = 0.002; heterogeneity = 34%) and MACE (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.22–0.99; P overall effect = 0.05; heterogeneity = 46%), but not TMPG 3. Pooling the data of the two studies with similar intervention i.e., thrombolytics + AT further refined the results with statistical improvement of TMPG 3 as well (OR = 5.44, 95% CI: 2.61- 11.34; P overall effect <0.ehab724.211201; heterogeneity = 0%) (Fig. 1). Pooled results for GPI and GPI+AT groups did not show statistical improvement in TIMI flow G3, MBG 2/3, nor complete STR (Fig. 2). Conclusion The findings of this meta-analysis showed that IC-administered thrombolytic agents improved myocardial reperfusion and MACE compared with AT alone in STEMI patients undergoing PCI. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.