Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2026

Postconditioning with Lactate-enriched Blood for Cardioprotection in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Published on: May 28, 2019
Protection of Distal Embolization in High-Risk Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Fernando A Cura1, Alejandro Garcia Escudero, Daniel Berrocal
1Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. fcura@icba-cardiovascular.com.ar
Insights
Filter-based distal protection during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is safe and retrieves debris. However, it did not improve myocardial reperfusion, ventricular function, or clinical outcomes in high-risk patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Distal embolization can impair myocardial reperfusion following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
- Previous trials on distal protection devices during primary PCI have yielded controversial results.
- The PREMIAR trial investigated filter-based distal protection in high-risk ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients prone to embolic events.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the efficacy of filter-based distal protection in improving myocardial reperfusion.
- To assess the impact of distal protection on angiographic measures, cardiac function, and clinical outcomes.
- To determine if distal protection offers benefits in high-risk STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.
Main Methods:
- Prospective, randomized, controlled study (PREMIAR trial) involving 140 patients randomized to PCI with or without distal protection.
- Primary endpoint: ST-segment resolution monitored continuously.
- Secondary endpoints: Angiographic myocardial blush, ejection fraction (echocardiography), and 6-month adverse cardiac events.
Main Results:
- Complete ST-segment resolution rates were similar between groups (61.2% vs 60.3%, p=0.85).
- Angiographic myocardial blush, in-hospital ejection fraction, and 6-month composite endpoints (death, heart failure, reinfarction) showed no significant differences.
- Filter-based distal protection was safe and effective in debris retrieval but did not enhance reperfusion or clinical outcomes.
Conclusions:
- Filter-based distal protection is a safe adjunctive strategy during primary PCI in high-risk STEMI patients.
- The routine use of filter-based distal protection does not improve myocardial reperfusion, left ventricular performance, or clinical outcomes.
- Further research may be needed to identify specific patient subgroups who could benefit from distal protection devices.
Abstract:
Distal embolization may decrease myocardial reperfusion after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nonetheless, results of previous trials assessing the role of distal protection during primary PCI have been controversial. The Protection of Distal Embolization in High-Risk Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Trial (PREMIAR) was a prospective, randomized, controlled study designed to evaluate the role of filter-based distal protection during PCI in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction at high risk of embolic events (including only baseline Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 0 to 2 flow). The primary end point was continuous monitoring of ST-segment resolution. Secondary end points included core laboratory analysis of angiographic myocardial blush, ejection fraction measured by cardiac ultrasound, and adverse cardiac events at 6 months. From a total of 194 enrolled patients, 140 subjects were randomized to PCI with or without embolic protection, and 54 were included in a registry arm due to the presence of angiographic exclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics were comparable between arms. The rate of complete ST-segment resolution (>or=70%) at 60 minutes was similar in patients treated with or without distal protection (61.2% vs 60.3%, respectively, p = 0.85). Angiographic myocardial blush (67% vs 70.7%, p = 0.73), in-hospital ejection fraction (47.4 +/- 9.9% vs 45.3 +/- 7.3%, p = 0.29), and combined end point of death, heart failure, or reinfarction at 6 months (14.3% vs 15.7%, p = 0.81) were consistently achieved in a similar proportion in the 2 groups. In conclusion, the use of filter-based distal protection is safe and effectively retrieves debris; however, such use does not translate into an improvement of myocardial reperfusion, left ventricular performance, or clinical outcomes.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome II: Pathophysiology and Clinical Manifestations
Pulmonary Embolism III: Nursing Management