Real world comparison of the MGuard Stent versus the bare metal stent for ST Elevation myocardial infarction (The REWARD-MI study)
Aim: The MGuard Stent (MGS) was designed to prevent distal embolization of thrombus and has been shown to improve microcirculation in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are no real world data comparing it with the bare metal stent (BMS). The aim of this study is to determine...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2015-01, Vol.85 (1), p.E1-E9 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | E9 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | E1 |
| container_title | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions |
| container_volume | 85 |
| creator | Fernández-Cisnal, Agustín Cid-Álvarez, B. Álvarez-Álvarez, B. Cubero-Gómez, J.M. Ocaranza-Sánchez, R. López-Otero, D. Souto-Castro, P. Díaz de la Llera, L.S. Trillo-Nouche, R. González-Juanatey, J.R. |
| description | Aim: The MGuard Stent (MGS) was designed to prevent distal embolization of thrombus and has been shown to improve microcirculation in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are no real world data comparing it with the bare metal stent (BMS). The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of the MGS in STEMI in the real world compared to the BMS.
Methods and Results: In total, 262 patients were included from a single centre, of which 35.9% had an MGS implanted. Two groups of 79 patients were established after propensity score matching, and they were similar in terms of baseline and periprocedural variables. The mean follow‐up was 321 ± 12.94 days. There was no difference in mortality (7.6% in both groups), major adverse cardiac events (20.3% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.198), non‐cardiac mortality, or non‐fatal myocardial infarction (6.3% in both groups). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was significantly higher in the MGS group (11.4% (9) vs. 1.3% (1) P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ccd.25563 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1639492876</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1639492876</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-i3873-841812f04c28641a7e6f7a63e10414d1b09f2ac7234f51dd6b2623ca127bad923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkU1v1DAQhi0EoqXtgT-ALHEph7T-ih0fq90lFLVU2t2q3CzHcYRLEi920rJXfjne7NIDJ49mnmdkzQvAe4wuMELk0pj6guQ5p6_AMc4JyQTh318faiwZPwLvYnxECElO5FtwRJhEeZ6zY_BnaXULn31oa2h8t9HBRd9D38Dhh4W35ahDDVeD7Qf4ZEMc49SvdLCws0NS4zRrfICrNVy09kkPLi3ott4k1SXC9Y0OZuqer5O8XDxcLefZ7XVyx3r76RS8aXQb7dnhPQH3nxfr2Zfs5q68nl3dZI4WgmYFwwUmDWKGFJxhLSxvhObUYsQwq3GFZEO0EYSyJsd1zSvCCTUaE1HpWhJ6As73ezfB_xptHFTnorFtq3vrx6gwp5JJUgie0I__oY9-DH363Y7iBcVE7qgPB2qsOlurTXCdDlv177oJuNwDz66125c5RmoXm0qxqSk2NZvNpyIZ2d5w6a6_XwwdfiouqMjVw7dSyflXWs7LlVrSv3ixlxM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1636831296</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Real world comparison of the MGuard Stent versus the bare metal stent for ST Elevation myocardial infarction (The REWARD-MI study)</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Fernández-Cisnal, Agustín ; Cid-Álvarez, B. ; Álvarez-Álvarez, B. ; Cubero-Gómez, J.M. ; Ocaranza-Sánchez, R. ; López-Otero, D. ; Souto-Castro, P. ; Díaz de la Llera, L.S. ; Trillo-Nouche, R. ; González-Juanatey, J.R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fernández-Cisnal, Agustín ; Cid-Álvarez, B. ; Álvarez-Álvarez, B. ; Cubero-Gómez, J.M. ; Ocaranza-Sánchez, R. ; López-Otero, D. ; Souto-Castro, P. ; Díaz de la Llera, L.S. ; Trillo-Nouche, R. ; González-Juanatey, J.R.</creatorcontrib><description>Aim: The MGuard Stent (MGS) was designed to prevent distal embolization of thrombus and has been shown to improve microcirculation in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are no real world data comparing it with the bare metal stent (BMS). The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of the MGS in STEMI in the real world compared to the BMS.
Methods and Results: In total, 262 patients were included from a single centre, of which 35.9% had an MGS implanted. Two groups of 79 patients were established after propensity score matching, and they were similar in terms of baseline and periprocedural variables. The mean follow‐up was 321 ± 12.94 days. There was no difference in mortality (7.6% in both groups), major adverse cardiac events (20.3% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.198), non‐cardiac mortality, or non‐fatal myocardial infarction (6.3% in both groups). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was significantly higher in the MGS group (11.4% (9) vs. 1.3% (1) P < 0.01; RR 10.02 [1.23–81.16]).
Conclusion: Our study is the first to compare the MGS with the BMS in STEMI in the real world, and it also appears to confirm that although the MGS is a safe device in STEMI that is not associated with increased mortality, it is associated with a higher long‐term TLR rate. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1522-1946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-726X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ccd.25563</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24905554</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CARIF2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aged ; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - adverse effects ; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - instrumentation ; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - mortality ; Coronary Restenosis - etiology ; Coronary Thrombosis ; Female ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Logistic Models ; Male ; mesh ; Metals ; Middle Aged ; Myocardial Infarction - diagnosis ; Myocardial Infarction - mortality ; Myocardial Infarction - therapy ; Odds Ratio ; primary angioplasty ; Propensity Score ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Prosthesis Design ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Spain ; ST-elevation myocardial infarction ; stent ; Stents ; target lesion revascularization ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2015-01, Vol.85 (1), p.E1-E9</ispartof><rights>2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fccd.25563$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fccd.25563$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24905554$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fernández-Cisnal, Agustín</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cid-Álvarez, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Álvarez-Álvarez, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cubero-Gómez, J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ocaranza-Sánchez, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>López-Otero, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Souto-Castro, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Díaz de la Llera, L.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trillo-Nouche, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González-Juanatey, J.R.</creatorcontrib><title>Real world comparison of the MGuard Stent versus the bare metal stent for ST Elevation myocardial infarction (The REWARD-MI study)</title><title>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</title><addtitle>Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent</addtitle><description>Aim: The MGuard Stent (MGS) was designed to prevent distal embolization of thrombus and has been shown to improve microcirculation in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are no real world data comparing it with the bare metal stent (BMS). The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of the MGS in STEMI in the real world compared to the BMS.
Methods and Results: In total, 262 patients were included from a single centre, of which 35.9% had an MGS implanted. Two groups of 79 patients were established after propensity score matching, and they were similar in terms of baseline and periprocedural variables. The mean follow‐up was 321 ± 12.94 days. There was no difference in mortality (7.6% in both groups), major adverse cardiac events (20.3% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.198), non‐cardiac mortality, or non‐fatal myocardial infarction (6.3% in both groups). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was significantly higher in the MGS group (11.4% (9) vs. 1.3% (1) P < 0.01; RR 10.02 [1.23–81.16]).
Conclusion: Our study is the first to compare the MGS with the BMS in STEMI in the real world, and it also appears to confirm that although the MGS is a safe device in STEMI that is not associated with increased mortality, it is associated with a higher long‐term TLR rate. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - adverse effects</subject><subject>Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - instrumentation</subject><subject>Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - mortality</subject><subject>Coronary Restenosis - etiology</subject><subject>Coronary Thrombosis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>mesh</subject><subject>Metals</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Myocardial Infarction - diagnosis</subject><subject>Myocardial Infarction - mortality</subject><subject>Myocardial Infarction - therapy</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>primary angioplasty</subject><subject>Propensity Score</subject><subject>Proportional Hazards Models</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Recurrence</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Spain</subject><subject>ST-elevation myocardial infarction</subject><subject>stent</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>target lesion revascularization</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1522-1946</issn><issn>1522-726X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkU1v1DAQhi0EoqXtgT-ALHEph7T-ih0fq90lFLVU2t2q3CzHcYRLEi920rJXfjne7NIDJ49mnmdkzQvAe4wuMELk0pj6guQ5p6_AMc4JyQTh318faiwZPwLvYnxECElO5FtwRJhEeZ6zY_BnaXULn31oa2h8t9HBRd9D38Dhh4W35ahDDVeD7Qf4ZEMc49SvdLCws0NS4zRrfICrNVy09kkPLi3ott4k1SXC9Y0OZuqer5O8XDxcLefZ7XVyx3r76RS8aXQb7dnhPQH3nxfr2Zfs5q68nl3dZI4WgmYFwwUmDWKGFJxhLSxvhObUYsQwq3GFZEO0EYSyJsd1zSvCCTUaE1HpWhJ6As73ezfB_xptHFTnorFtq3vrx6gwp5JJUgie0I__oY9-DH363Y7iBcVE7qgPB2qsOlurTXCdDlv177oJuNwDz66125c5RmoXm0qxqSk2NZvNpyIZ2d5w6a6_XwwdfiouqMjVw7dSyflXWs7LlVrSv3ixlxM</recordid><startdate>20150101</startdate><enddate>20150101</enddate><creator>Fernández-Cisnal, Agustín</creator><creator>Cid-Álvarez, B.</creator><creator>Álvarez-Álvarez, B.</creator><creator>Cubero-Gómez, J.M.</creator><creator>Ocaranza-Sánchez, R.</creator><creator>López-Otero, D.</creator><creator>Souto-Castro, P.</creator><creator>Díaz de la Llera, L.S.</creator><creator>Trillo-Nouche, R.</creator><creator>González-Juanatey, J.R.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150101</creationdate><title>Real world comparison of the MGuard Stent versus the bare metal stent for ST Elevation myocardial infarction (The REWARD-MI study)</title><author>Fernández-Cisnal, Agustín ; Cid-Álvarez, B. ; Álvarez-Álvarez, B. ; Cubero-Gómez, J.M. ; Ocaranza-Sánchez, R. ; López-Otero, D. ; Souto-Castro, P. ; Díaz de la Llera, L.S. ; Trillo-Nouche, R. ; González-Juanatey, J.R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i3873-841812f04c28641a7e6f7a63e10414d1b09f2ac7234f51dd6b2623ca127bad923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - adverse effects</topic><topic>Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - instrumentation</topic><topic>Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - mortality</topic><topic>Coronary Restenosis - etiology</topic><topic>Coronary Thrombosis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kaplan-Meier Estimate</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>mesh</topic><topic>Metals</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Myocardial Infarction - diagnosis</topic><topic>Myocardial Infarction - mortality</topic><topic>Myocardial Infarction - therapy</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>primary angioplasty</topic><topic>Propensity Score</topic><topic>Proportional Hazards Models</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Recurrence</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Spain</topic><topic>ST-elevation myocardial infarction</topic><topic>stent</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>target lesion revascularization</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fernández-Cisnal, Agustín</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cid-Álvarez, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Álvarez-Álvarez, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cubero-Gómez, J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ocaranza-Sánchez, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>López-Otero, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Souto-Castro, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Díaz de la Llera, L.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trillo-Nouche, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González-Juanatey, J.R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fernández-Cisnal, Agustín</au><au>Cid-Álvarez, B.</au><au>Álvarez-Álvarez, B.</au><au>Cubero-Gómez, J.M.</au><au>Ocaranza-Sánchez, R.</au><au>López-Otero, D.</au><au>Souto-Castro, P.</au><au>Díaz de la Llera, L.S.</au><au>Trillo-Nouche, R.</au><au>González-Juanatey, J.R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Real world comparison of the MGuard Stent versus the bare metal stent for ST Elevation myocardial infarction (The REWARD-MI study)</atitle><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle><addtitle>Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent</addtitle><date>2015-01-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>E1</spage><epage>E9</epage><pages>E1-E9</pages><issn>1522-1946</issn><eissn>1522-726X</eissn><coden>CARIF2</coden><abstract>Aim: The MGuard Stent (MGS) was designed to prevent distal embolization of thrombus and has been shown to improve microcirculation in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are no real world data comparing it with the bare metal stent (BMS). The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of the MGS in STEMI in the real world compared to the BMS.
Methods and Results: In total, 262 patients were included from a single centre, of which 35.9% had an MGS implanted. Two groups of 79 patients were established after propensity score matching, and they were similar in terms of baseline and periprocedural variables. The mean follow‐up was 321 ± 12.94 days. There was no difference in mortality (7.6% in both groups), major adverse cardiac events (20.3% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.198), non‐cardiac mortality, or non‐fatal myocardial infarction (6.3% in both groups). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was significantly higher in the MGS group (11.4% (9) vs. 1.3% (1) P < 0.01; RR 10.02 [1.23–81.16]).
Conclusion: Our study is the first to compare the MGS with the BMS in STEMI in the real world, and it also appears to confirm that although the MGS is a safe device in STEMI that is not associated with increased mortality, it is associated with a higher long‐term TLR rate. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>24905554</pmid><doi>10.1002/ccd.25563</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1522-1946 |
| ispartof | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2015-01, Vol.85 (1), p.E1-E9 |
| issn | 1522-1946 1522-726X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1639492876 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Aged Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - adverse effects Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - instrumentation Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary - mortality Coronary Restenosis - etiology Coronary Thrombosis Female Humans Kaplan-Meier Estimate Logistic Models Male mesh Metals Middle Aged Myocardial Infarction - diagnosis Myocardial Infarction - mortality Myocardial Infarction - therapy Odds Ratio primary angioplasty Propensity Score Proportional Hazards Models Prosthesis Design Recurrence Retrospective Studies Risk Factors Spain ST-elevation myocardial infarction stent Stents target lesion revascularization Time Factors Treatment Outcome |
| title | Real world comparison of the MGuard Stent versus the bare metal stent for ST Elevation myocardial infarction (The REWARD-MI study) |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T10%3A16%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Real%20world%20comparison%20of%20the%20MGuard%20Stent%20versus%20the%20bare%20metal%20stent%20for%20ST%20Elevation%20myocardial%20infarction%20(The%20REWARD-MI%20study)&rft.jtitle=Catheterization%20and%20cardiovascular%20interventions&rft.au=Fern%C3%A1ndez-Cisnal,%20Agust%C3%ADn&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=E1&rft.epage=E9&rft.pages=E1-E9&rft.issn=1522-1946&rft.eissn=1522-726X&rft.coden=CARIF2&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ccd.25563&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1639492876%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1636831296&rft_id=info:pmid/24905554&rfr_iscdi=true |