CLINICAL RESEARCH: CLINICAL TRIAL
The PROXIMAL Trial: Proximal Protection During Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention Using the Proxis Embolic Protection SystemA Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial
Laura Mauri, MD, MSc, FACC*, ,*,
David Cox, MD, FACC ,
James Hermiller, MD, FACC ,
Joseph Massaro, PhD ,
Joyce Wahr, MD||,
Sew Wah Tay, PhD||,
Michael Jonas, MD*,
Jeffrey J. Popma, MD, FACC*,
Jim Pavliska, BS||,
Dennis Wahr, MD, FACC|| and
Campbell Rogers, MD, FACC*
* Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, Pennsylvania
St. Vincents Hopsital, Indianapolis, Indiana
|| Velocimed/St. Jude Medical, Maple Grove, Minnesota.
Manuscript received May 8, 2007;
revised manuscript received June 15, 2007,
accepted June 25, 2007.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Laura Mauri, Brigham and Womens Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02115. (Email: lmauri1{at}partners.org).
Objectives: To determine if outcomes could be further improved, we investigated an embolic protection device placed proximal to the target lesion that could provide protection before lesion instrumentation, allow the use of conventional guidewires, and permit embolic protection in anatomy unfavorable for distal devices.
Background: Embolic complications during stenting of degenerated saphenous vein coronary bypass grafts are reduced, but not eliminated, by distal protection.
Methods: A total of 594 patients undergoing stenting of 639 saphenous vein grafts were prospectively randomized, using a noninferiority design, to compare 2 treatment strategies: control (distal protection whenever possible) or test (proximal protection when possible, distal when not).
Results: The primary composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days by intention to treat analysis occurred in 10.0% of control and 9.2% of test patients; difference = –0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] –5.5% to 4.0%); p for noninferiority = 0.0061. In device specific analysis, this composite end point occurred in 11.7% of distal protection patients and 7.1% of proximal protection patients (difference = –4.6% [95% CI –9.6% to 0.3%]; p for superiority = 0.10, p for noninferiority = 0.001). Finally, in the subset of patients with lesions amenable to treatment with either proximal or distal protection devices (n = 410), the primary composite end point occurred in 12.2% of distal protection patients and 7.4% of proximal protection patients; difference = –4.7% (95% CI –10.4% to 1.0%), p for superiority = 0.14, p for noninferiority = 0.001.
Conclusions: Using proximal embolic protection whenever possible during treatment of diseased saphenous vein grafts produced outcomes similar to those with distal embolic protection.
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | MACE = major adverse cardiac event | | MI = myocardial infarction | | PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention | | SVG = saphenous vein graft |
|
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. Heusch, P. Kleinbongard, D. Bose, B. Levkau, M. Haude, R. Schulz, and R. Erbel
Coronary Microembolization: From Bedside to Bench and Back to Bedside
Circulation,
November 3, 2009;
120(18):
1822 - 1836.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. D.E. Haeck, K. T. Koch, L. Bilodeau, R. J. Van der Schaaf, J. P.S. Henriques, M. M. Vis, J. Baan Jr, A. C. Van der Wal, J. J. Piek, J. G.P. Tijssen, et al.
Randomized Comparison of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Combined Proximal Embolic Protection and Thrombus Aspiration Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Alone in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The PREPARE (PRoximal Embolic Protection in Acute myocardial infarction and Resolution of ST-Elevation) Study
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
October 1, 2009;
2(10):
934 - 943.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. Srinivasan, C. Rihal, D. R. Holmes, and A. Prasad
Adjunctive Thrombectomy and Distal Protection in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Impact on Microvascular Perfusion and Outcomes
Circulation,
March 10, 2009;
119(9):
1311 - 1319.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. G. Steg and G. Ducrocq
Devices to protect against embolization during primary angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the good, the bad and the ugly
Eur. Heart J.,
December 2, 2008;
29(24):
2953 - 2954.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill
The year in interventional cardiology.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
June 17, 2008;
51(24):
2355 - 2369.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. R. Bates
Aspirating and Filtering Atherothrombotic Debris During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv.,
June 1, 2008;
1(3):
265 - 267.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. Coolong, D. S. Baim, R. E. Kuntz, A. J. O'Malley, S. Marulkar, D. E. Cutlip, J. J. Popma, and L. Mauri
Saphenous Vein Graft Stenting and Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Predictive Model Derived From a Pooled Analysis of 3958 Patients
Circulation,
February 12, 2008;
117(6):
790 - 797.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. N. DeMaria, J. J. Bax, O. Ben-Yehuda, P. Clopton, G. K. Feld, G. S. Ginsburg, B. H. Greenberg, J. D. Knoke, W. Y.W. Lew, J. A.C. Lima, et al.
Highlights of the year in JACC 2007.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 29, 2008;
51(4):
490 - 512.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Proximal Protection for Saphenous Vein Graft Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Journal Watch Cardiology,
December 12, 2007;
2007(1212):
7 - 7.
[Full Text]
|
 |
|
|