English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The recent trials of routine use of embolic protection devices for primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) (the EMERALD, PROMISE, and AIMI trials) have demonstrated neutral or even negative effects of these devices on myocardial reperfusion and final infarct size. Despite these results, there is still ground to believe that PCI-induced embolization may be clinically relevant in specific subsets of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Significant clinical consequences may be expected when embolization is quantitatively relevant and/or is qualitatively characterized by lipid-rich athero-embolism (as is the case of lipid core embolization through the ruptured cap of a fibro-atheroma). Future trials on embolic protection devices in primary PCI should adopt a selective, rather than a routine strategy, through the identification, by angiographic or intravascular imaging parameters, of patients at highest risk of clinically relevant embolization. Such trials should also adopt specific endpoints able to evaluate the effect of micro-embolization, which is currently far from optimally assessed by the standard markers of myocardial reperfusion.

EMERALD, AIMI, and PROMISE: is there still a potential for embolic protection in primary PCI?