Trombectomía por aspiración para el tratamiento del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST: un metanálisis de 26 ensayos aleatorizados con 11.943 pacientes

Abstract

Introduction and objectivesThere is continued debate about the routine use of aspiration thrombectomy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Our aim was to evaluate clinical and procedural outcomes of aspiration thrombectomy-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared with conventional primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis of 26 randomized controlled trials with a total of 11 943 patients. Clinical outcomes were extracted up to maximum follow-up and random effect models were used to assess differences in outcomes. ResultsWe observed no difference in the risk of all-cause death (pooled risk ratio = 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.04; P = .124), reinfarction (pooled risk ratio = 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.08; P = .176), target vessel revascularization (pooled risk ratio = 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.00; P = .052), or definite stent thrombosis (pooled risk ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.16; P = .202) between the 2 groups at a mean weighted follow-up time of 10.4 months. There were significant reductions in failure to reach Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow (pooled risk ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.81; P < .001) or myocardial blush grade 3 (pooled risk ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.89; P = .001), incomplete ST-segment resolution (pooled risk ratio = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.84; P < .001), and evidence of distal embolization (pooled risk ratio = 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.81; P = .001) with aspiration thrombectomy but estimates were heterogeneous between trials. ConclusionsAmong unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, aspiration thrombectomy-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention does not improve clinical outcomes, despite improved epicardial and myocardial parameters of reperfusion.Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en