Culprit lesion thrombus burden after manual thrombectomy or percutaneous coronary intervention-alone in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the optical coherence tomography sub-study of the TOTAL (ThrOmbecTomy versus PCI ALone) trial.

AIMS: Manual thrombectomy has been proposed as a strategy to reduce thrombus burden during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the effectiveness of manual thrombectomy in reducing thrombus burden is uncertain. In this substudy of the TOTAL (ThrOmbecTomy versus PCI ALone) trial, we compared the thrombus burden at the culprit lesion using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients treated with thrombectomy vs. PCI-alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TOTAL trial (N = 10 732) was an international, multicentre, randomized trial of thrombectomy (using the Export catheter, Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI. The OCT substudy prospectively enrolled 214 patients from 13 sites in 5 countries. Optical coherence tomography was performed immediately after thrombectomy or PCI-alone and then repeated after stent deployment. Thrombus quantification was performed by an independent core laboratory blinded to treatment assignment. The primary outcome of pre-stent thrombus burden as a percentage of segment analysed was 2.36% (95% CI: 1.73-3.22) in the thrombectomy group and 2.88% (95% CI: 2.12-3.90) in the PCI-alone group (P = 0.373). Absolute pre-stent thrombus volume was not different (2.99 vs. 3.74 mm(3), P = 0.329). Other secondary outcomes of pre-stent quadrants of thrombus, post-stent atherothrombotic burden, and post-stent atherothrombotic volume were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: Manual thrombectomy did not reduce pre-stent thrombus burden at the culprit lesion compared with PCI-alone. Both strategies were associated with low thrombus burden at the lesion site after the initial intervention to restore flow.

Management patterns in relation to risk stratification among patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have established the efficacy of an early invasive management strategy for high-risk non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). We examined the use of in-hospital cardiac catheterization and medications in relation to risk across the broad spectrum of non-ST elevation ACSs. METHODS: We evaluated 4414 patients with non-ST elevation ACSs in the prospective, multicenter, Canadian ACS 1 (September 1, 1999-June 30, 2001) and ACS 2 (October 1, 2002-December 31, 2003) Registries. Patients were stratified into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups based on tertiles of the calculated Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk score (a validated predictor of in-hospital mortality). RESULTS: Although in-hospital mortality rates were similar, the in-hospital use of cardiac catheterization increased significantly over time (38.8% in the ACS 1 Registry vs 63.5% in the ACS 2 Registry; P<.001). The rates of cardiac catheterization in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 48.0%, 41.1%, and 27.3% in the ACS 1 Registry, and 73.8%, 66.9%, and 49.7% in the ACS 2 Registry, respectively (P<.001 for trend for both). After adjusting for other confounders, intermediate-risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.90; P<.001) and high-risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.45; P<.001) patients remained less likely to undergo cardiac catheterization compared with low-risk patients. Furthermore, there existed a similar inverse relationship between risk and the use of in-hospital revascularization and medications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite temporal increases in the use of cardiac catheterization and revascularization in the management of non-ST elevation ACSs, evidence-based invasive and pharmacological therapies remain paradoxically targeted toward low-risk patients. Strategies to eliminate this treatment-risk paradox must be implemented to fully realize the benefits and optimize the cost-effectiveness of invasive management.