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

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

Post on 23-Dec-2015




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li> Slide 1 </li> <li> SMASH IT! Mark Mason Interventional Cardiologist Harefield Hospital Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust </li> <li> Slide 2 </li> <li> 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? </li> <li> Slide 3 </li> <li> ThromCat Smash and suck type device High pressure jets smash and internal Archimedes screw draws in the debris Doesnt require large permanent console- pack contains all thats needed (other than some saline) </li> <li> Slide 4 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> Slide 5 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> Slide 6 </li> <li> 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 &gt;50% ST resolution Significant reduction in distal embolisation No difference in TIMI score, myocardial blush, or 6 month event rates </li> <li> Slide 7 </li> <li> Angiojet Smash and suck type device Requires large permanent console with additional disposable catheters </li> <li> Slide 8 </li> <li> 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. </li> <li> Slide 9 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> Slide 10 </li> <li> 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) </li> <li> Slide 11 </li> <li> 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 </li> <li> Slide 12 </li> <li> 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 </li> </ul>