cardiology careers collections past issues search home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007; 50:1442-1449, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.039 (Published online 21 September 2007).
© 2007 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow View PROXIMAL Study organization
Right arrow View Cardiosource Slide Set
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
j.jacc.2007.06.039v1
50/15/1442    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mauri, L.
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Mauri, L.
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, C.

CLINICAL RESEARCH: CLINICAL TRIAL

The PROXIMAL Trial: Proximal Protection During Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention Using the Proxis Embolic Protection System

A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial

Laura Mauri, MD, MSc, FACC*,{dagger},*, David Cox, MD, FACC{ddagger}, James Hermiller, MD, FACC§, Joseph Massaro, PhD{dagger}, 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 Women's Hospital
{dagger} Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
{ddagger} Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, Pennsylvania
§ St. Vincent's 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 Women's 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:


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
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]


Home page
J Am Coll Cardiol IntvHome page
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]


Home page
CirculationHome page
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]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
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]


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



 
  cardiology careers collections past issues search home