Comparative Safety of Aspiration Thrombectomy Catheters Utilizing Prospective, Active Surveillance of the NCDR CathPCI Registry

Outcomes of thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Previous large multi-centre randomised controlled trials have not provided clear benefit with routine intracoronary thrombus aspiration (TA) as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

AIM

To determine whether there is a difference in outcomes with the use of manual TA prior to PCI, compared with PCI alone in a cohort of patients with STEMI.

METHODS

We analysed data from 6270 consecutive patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI prospectively enrolled in the Melbourne Interventional Group registry between 2007 and 2018. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine predictors of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and long-term mortality.

RESULTS

We compared 1621 (26%) patients undergoing primary PCI with TA to 4649 (74%) patients undergoing PCI alone. Male gender (81% vs 78%; P < 0.01), younger age (61 vs 63 years; P = 0.03), GP-IIb/IIIa use (76% vs 58%, P < 0.01), and current smoking (40% vs 36%; P < 0.01) were more common in the TA group. TA was more likely to be used in patients with complex lesions (83% vs 66%; P < 0.01) with TIMI 0 flow (77% vs 56%; P < 0.01). No significant difference in post-procedural TIMI flow, stroke, 30-day mortality, or long-term mortality were identified. Multivariable analysis demonstrated a reduction in 30-day MACCE (hazard ratio (HR) 0.75; confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.89; P < 0.01) in the TA group, but was not associated with long-term mortality (HR 0.98; CI 0.85-1.1; P = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

The use of TA in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI was not associated with improved short or long-term mortality when compared with PCI alone.

Active Surveillance of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry for Defibrillator Lead Failures

BACKGROUND

Several defibrillator leads have been recalled due to early lead failure leading to significant patient harm. Confirming the safety of contemporary defibrillator leads is essential to optimizing treatment for patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We therefore sought to assess the comparative long-term safety of the 4 most commonly implanted ICD leads within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A propensity-matched survival analysis of the ICD Registry was performed evaluating 4 contemporary ICD leads in patients receiving an ICD system for the first time. All patients in the ICD Registry aged ≥18 years who underwent an implant of an ICD between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2016 were included. Monitoring of safety began with ICD implant and continued up to 5 years. A meaningful difference in ICD failure rate was defined as twice (or more) the lead failure rate observed in the propensity-matched comparator patients. Among the 374 132 patients who received a new ICD implant, no safety alerts were triggered for the primary safety end point of lead failure for any of the high energy leads studied. Estimated rates of freedom from lead failure at 5 years ranged from 97.7% to 98.9% for the 4 high-energy leads of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Though limited by incomplete long-term outcomes ascertainment, active surveillance of the ICD Registry suggests that there were no meaningful differences in the rate of ICD high-energy lead survival for the 4 most commonly used high-energy ICD leads.