| acute myocardial infarction | divers | not classified | versus conventional PCI No demonstrated result for efficacy | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| De Luca, 2006 | Diver vs conventional PCI | Myocardial Blush Grade <3 0.73 [0.55; 0.96] | | MACE 0.75 [0.18; 3.13] TIMI<3 flow 0.67 [0.31; 1.44] | | REMEDIA, 2005 | Diver vs conventional PCI | Myocardial Blush Grade <3 0.75 [0.57; 0.99] ST-segment resolution failure 0.66 [0.45; 0.98] | | revascularization 0.98 [0.06; 15.61] stroke 0.98 [0.06; 15.61] MACE 0.98 [0.30; 3.19] angiographically distal embolization 0.50 [0.16; 1.55] TIMI<3 flow 0.59 [0.28; 1.22] death or MI 1.00 [0.31; 3.23] | | PIHRATE, 2004 | Diver vs conventional PCI | | | revascularization 1.84 [0.17; 19.96] | | Sardella, 2005 | Diver vs conventional PCI | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| De Luca, 2006 | Diver (n=38) vs. conventional stenting (n=38) | patients with anterior ST elevation myocardial infarction | open Sample size: 38/38 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 6 months | | REMEDIA, 2005 | Diver (n=50) vs. standard PCI (n=49) | patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction | open Sample size: 50/49 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 month | | PIHRATE, 2004 | Diver (n=102) vs. conventional PCI (n=94) | patients with acute myocardial infarction | Sample size: 102/94 Primary endpoint: FU duration: hospital stay | | Sardella, 2005 | Diver (n=28) vs. conventional PCI (n=34) | patients with acute myocardial infarction | Sample size: 28/34 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 6 months |
|
| percutaneous coronary intervention | divers | not classified | versus conventional PCI No demonstrated result for efficacy | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
|---|
| De Luca, 2006 | Diver vs conventional PCI | Myocardial Blush Grade <3 0.73 [0.55; 0.96] | | MACE 0.75 [0.18; 3.13] TIMI<3 flow 0.67 [0.31; 1.44] | | REMEDIA, 2005 | Diver vs conventional PCI | Myocardial Blush Grade <3 0.75 [0.57; 0.99] ST-segment resolution failure 0.66 [0.45; 0.98] | | revascularization 0.98 [0.06; 15.61] stroke 0.98 [0.06; 15.61] MACE 0.98 [0.30; 3.19] angiographically distal embolization 0.50 [0.16; 1.55] TIMI<3 flow 0.59 [0.28; 1.22] death or MI 1.00 [0.31; 3.23] | | PIHRATE, 2004 | Diver vs conventional PCI | | | revascularization 1.84 [0.17; 19.96] | | Sardella, 2005 | Diver vs conventional PCI | | | |
| Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
|---|
| De Luca, 2006 | Diver (n=38) vs. conventional stenting (n=38) | patients with anterior ST elevation myocardial infarction | open Sample size: 38/38 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 6 months | | REMEDIA, 2005 | Diver (n=50) vs. standard PCI (n=49) | patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction | open Sample size: 50/49 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 month | | PIHRATE, 2004 | Diver (n=102) vs. conventional PCI (n=94) | patients with acute myocardial infarction | Sample size: 102/94 Primary endpoint: FU duration: hospital stay | | Sardella, 2005 | Diver (n=28) vs. conventional PCI (n=34) | patients with acute myocardial infarction | Sample size: 28/34 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 6 months |
|
