Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Comparison of Immediate With Delayed Stenting Using the Minimalist Immediate Mechanical Intervention Approach in Acute ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction

2016; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 9; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1161/circinterventions.115.003388

1941-7632

Loïc Belle, Pascal Motreff, Lionel Mangin, Grégoire Rangé, X. Marcaggi, Antoine Marie, N. Ferrier, Olivier Dubreuil, Gilles Zemour, Géraud Souteyrand, Christophe Caussin, Nicolas Amabile, Karl Isaaz, Raphaël Dauphin, René Köning, Christophe Robin, Benjamin Faurie, Laurent Bonello, Stanislas Champin, Cédric Delhaye, François Cuilleret, Nathan Mewton, Céline Genty, Magalie Viallon, Jean Luc Bosson, Pierre Croisille,

Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Background— Delayed stent implantation after restoration of normal epicardial flow by a minimalist immediate mechanical intervention aims to decrease the rate of distal embolization and impaired myocardial reperfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention. We sought to confirm whether a delayed stenting (DS) approach (24–48 hours) improves myocardial reperfusion, versus immediate stenting, in patients with acute ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Results— In the prospective, randomized, open-label minimalist immediate mechanical intervention (MIMI) trial, patients (n=140) with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction ≤12 hours were randomized to immediate stenting (n=73) or DS (n=67) after Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow restoration by thrombus aspiration. Patients in the DS group underwent a second coronary arteriography for stent implantation a median of 36 hours (interquartile range 29–46) after randomization. The primary end point was microvascular obstruction (% left ventricular mass) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging performed 5 days (interquartile range 4–6) after the first procedure. There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower microvascular obstruction in the immediate stenting group compared with DS group (1.88% versus 3.96%; P =0.051), which became significant after adjustment for the area at risk ( P =0.049). Median infarct weight, left ventricular ejection fraction, and infarct size did not differ between groups. No difference in 6-month outcomes was apparent for the rate of major cardiovascular and cerebral events. Conclusions— The present findings do not support a strategy of DS versus immediate stenting in patients with ST-segment–elevation infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and even suggested a deleterious effect of DS on microvascular obstruction size. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01360242.