AngioJet Rheolytic thrombectomy during rescue PCI for failed thrombolysis: a single-center experience.

Background. Previous studies have shown the efficacy of AngioJet® Rheolytic'" Thrombectomy (RT) in reducing thrombus burden and improving coronary flow in acute myocardial infarction (MI). No study has specifically evaluated the use of AngioJet RT in patients undergoing rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for failed thrombolysis, a setting that may be particularly beneficial given the extensive thrombus burden. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AngioJet RT during rescue PCI for failed thrombolysis. Methods. 214 consecutive patients were transferred to Good Samaritan Hospital to undergo rescue PCI for failed thrombolysis from January 2000 to October 2004. From this cohort, 32 patients (age 57 ± 9, 30% male) undergoing AngioJet RT for rescue PCI (RT group) were identified and matched by initial thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) flow and infarct related artery (IRA) location to 32 patients (age 60 ± 12, 24% male) undergoing rescue PCI without Angiojet RT (Control group). TIMI frame count and TIMI thrombus grade were assessed at initial and final angiography. Angiographic success (TIMI 3 flow, < 50% residual stenosis) and in-hospital clinical events, including bleeding complications and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) such as death, recurrent MI, target vessel revascularization and emergent bypass surgery were evaluated. Clinical success was defined as angiographic success in the absence of MACE. Results. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups, except patients undergoing AngioJet RT were more likely to be males and less likely to be intubated on transfer. 30/32 (94%) patients achieved a TIMI thrombus grade of 0 in the RT group, compared to 22/32 (69%) in the Control group. Final IRA TIMI frame count was similar in the RT compared to the Control group (33 ± 21 vs. 38 ± 23, p NS, respectively). The occurrence of no reflow was significantly lower in the RT compared to the Control group (13% vs. 56%, p < 0.001, respectively). There was a trend for higher angiographic success in the RT compared to the control group (93% vs. 78%, p = 0.07, respectively). Clinical success was higher in the RT compared to the Control group (91% vs. 71%, p = 0.05, respectively). There were no differences in bleeding complications or MACE between the groups. Conclusion. AngioJet RT in high-risk patients undergoing rescue PCI for failed thrombolysis is safe and more effective in decreasing thrombus burden and preventing no reflow than conventional PCI.