percutaneous coronary intervention clinical trials results

(Absorb, Abbott Vascular, versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent
ABSORB II,
NCT01425281
everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb, Abbott Vascular)
versus
everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience, Abbott Vascular)
patients aged 18-85 years with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vesselssingle blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year analysis
12 months dual antiplatelet versus 6 months dual antiplatelet
ISAR-SAFE, 2009
NCT00661206
additional 6 month period of clopidogrel
versus
placebo
Patients on clopidogrel therapy at least 6 months after DES implantation, who do not require a reintervention double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
24 months of dual antiplatelet treatment versus 6 months dual antiplatelet
PRODIGY, 2011
NCT00611286
24 months of dual antiplatelet treatment (clopidogrel plus aspirin)
versus
6 months of dual antiplatelet treatment (clopidogrel plus aspirin)
patients (74 with acute coronary syndromes and 26 with stable angina) who underwent stentingopen
Follow-up duration: 2 years
3 months DAPT versus 12 months DAPT
OPTIMIZE, 2013
NCT01113372
3 months DAPT (aspirin (100-200 mg daily) and clopidogrel (75 mg daily))
versus
12 months DAPT
patients with stable coronary artery disease or history of low-risk acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI with zotarolimus-eluting stentsopen-label
Brazil
6-month dual antiplatelet therapy versus 12 months dual antiplatelet
EXCELLENT, 2011
NCT00698607
dual antiplatelet therapy for six months
versus
dual antiplatelet therapy for one year
patients with coronary artery disease
Abciximab versus placebo
ADMIRAL, 2001
loading dose 250µg/kg infusion 0.125µg/kg/min for 12h
versus
Primary PCI
CADILLAC, 2002
loading dose 250µg/kg infusion 0.125µg/kg/min for 12h
versus
Primary PCI
RAPPORT, 1998
loading dose 250µg/kg infusion 0.125µg/kg/min for 12h
versus
Primary PTCA <
EPIC (with infusion), 1994
loading dose 250µg/kg infusion 10µg/min for 12h
versus
High risk for abrupt closurebitm
EPILOG, 1997
loading dose 250µg/kg infusion 0.125µg/kg/min (max 10µg) for 12h
versus
Elective or urgent PCIe
EPISTENT, 1998
loading dose 250µg/kg infusion 0.125µg/kg/min for 12h
versus
Elective or urgent PCI
CAPTURE, 1997
loading dose 250µg/kg infusion 10µg/min for 18-24h
versus
ERASER, 1999
loading dose µg/kg infusion µg/min for h
versus
Petronio, 2002
loading dose µg/kg infusion µg/min for h
versus
Simoons, 1994
loading dose µg/kg infusion µg/min for h
versus
Kini, 2001
loading dose µg/kg infusion µg/min for h
versus
Tamburino, 2002
loading dose µg/kg infusion µg/min for h
versus
ISAR-2, 2000
loading dose 250µg/kg infusion 10µg/min for 12h
versus
PCI <48 h after MI
amlodipine versus placebo
Jorgensen (NICOLE), 2001
amlodipine (10 mg/day)
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: 4months
Angioguard versus conventional PCI
DIPLOMATE, 2004
Angioguard
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Wang, 2003
Angioguard
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
AngioJet versus conventional PCI
AiMI, 2006
AngioJet
versus
PCI alone
patients presenting within 12 h of symptom onsetopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Florence, 2004
AngioJet
versus
placebo
patients with a first acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 1 month
AnjioJet versus conventional PCI
JETSTENT, 2010
AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy
versus
direct stenting alone
patients with ST-elevation MI and at least moderate thrombus burden open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Italy
aspirin versus placebo
Taylor (Perth), 1991
aspirin, 100 mg/day after 2 weeks
versus
placebo
patients aged less than 70 years without acute infarction undergoing PTCAdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6m
M-HEART II (aspirin), 1995
aspirin 325 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients undergoing PTCAdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6m
aspirin + dipyridamol versus placebo
Schwartz (Toronto), 1988
aspirin 990 + D225 (H)
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: 6m
Canada
White (aspirin+dipiridamol), 1991
ticlopidine 500, aspirin 650 + D225
versus

Follow-up duration: 6m
Nye (Dunedin), 1990
aspirin 300 + D225
versus
placebo
NA
Follow-up duration: 12m
Mayo-PTCA, 1989
aspirin 975 + D225
versus

Follow-up duration: 48h
atorvastatin versus control
NAPLES II (Briguori), 2009
atorvastatin 80 mg loading dose administered within 24 hours prior to elective PCI
versus
no statin therapy
Patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for elective PCI and not on statin therapy open
Follow-up duration: 24h
atorvastatin versus placebo
ARMYDA, 2004
atorvastatin 40 mg/day seven days prior to the procedure
versus
placebo
Patients scheduled for elective PCI double blind
Follow-up duration: 1 mo
atorvastatin versus usual care
GAIN, 2001
Atorvastatin 20–40 mg/d 1 d after PCI
versus
usual care
open
Follow-up duration: 12 mo
atorvastatin reload versus placebo
ARMYDA-RECAPTURE, 2009
atorvastatin reload (80 mg 12 h before intervention, with a further 40-mg pre-procedural dose)
versus
placebo
patient with long-term atorvastatin treatment thereafter (40 mg/day) undergoing PCI (for stable angina or NSTEMI ACS)double blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
Italy
biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent
BIOFLOW-V, 0
NCT02389946
Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent
versus
durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent
patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
Switzerland
bivalirudin versus heparin + GP2b3a inhibitors
ACUITY (Stone) (bivalirudin alone), 2006
NCT00093158
bivalirudin alone
versus
unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor
patients with acute coronary syndromes open
Follow-up duration: 30 days
HORIZONS-AMI (Stone), 2008
NCT00433966
Bivalirudin
versus
Heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who presented within 12 hours after the onset of symptoms and who were undergoing primary PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
11 countries
REPLACE-2, 2003
bivalirudin, with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (Gp IIb/IIIa) inhibition on a provisional basis for complications during PCI
versus
heparin plus planned Gp IIb/IIIa blockade
patients undergoing urgent or elective PCI double blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
9 countries
bivalirudin versus UFH
ARMYDA BIVALVE,
bivalirudin (0.75 mg/kg bolus followed by 1.75 mg/kg per hour during the procedure)
versus
unfractionated heparin (75 IU/kg)
patients at high bleeding risk (over 75 years of age, diabetes, reduced renal function) scheduled for PCI
BAT (Bittl), 1995
bivalirudin immediately before angioplasty.
versus
heparin immediately before angioplasty
patients undergoing urgent angioplasty for unstable or postinfarction anginadouble blind
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
US
ISAR-REACT 3, 2008
NCT00262054
UFH bolus of 140 U/kg
versus
bivalirudin (bolus of 0.75 mg/kg, followed by infusion of 1.75 mg/kg/hr)
troponin-negative patients undergoing PCIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days (mean)
REPLACE-1, 2004
bivalirudin (0.75 mg/kg bolus, 1.75 mg/kg/h infusion during the procedure
versus
heparin (70 U/kg initial bolus) adjusted to ACT of 200 to 300s
patients undergoing elective or urgent revascularization
Follow-up duration: hospital stay (48h min)
US
bivalirudin versus UFH plus tirofiban
NAPLES (Tavano), 2009
bivalirudin monotherapy
versus
unfractionated heparin plus tirofiban
patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventionopen
Follow-up duration: 30 days
Italy
bivalirudin + eptifibatide versus heparin + GP2b3a inhibitors
Kleiman, 2002
bivalirudin + eptifibatide
versus
heparin + eptifibatide
patients who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention open
cangrelor versus clopidogrel
CHAMPION PHOENIX, 2013
NCT01156571
bolus and infusion of cangrelor followed by 600mg clopidogrel immediately post-infusion
versus
loading dose of 600 mg or 300 mg of clopidogrel
patients undergoing PCI for stable angina or for acute coronary syndromes, including ST-elevation MIdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 48 hours
cangrelor up front versus clopidogrel up front
CHAMPION-PCI, 2009
NCT00305162
cangrelor up front (cangrelor administered before percutaneous coronary intervention and followed by clopidogrel)
versus
clopidogrel up front (clopidogrel followed by placebo)
high risk patients requiring PCIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 48 h
14 countries
cangrelor up front versus delayed clopidogrel
CHAMPION-PLATFORM, 2009
NCT00385138
cangrelor up front (cangrelor during PCI followed by 600 mg of clopidogrel)
versus
delayed clopidogrel (placebo during PCI followed by 600 mg of clopidogrel)
patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention double blind
Follow-up duration: 48 h
18 countries
cilostazol versus aspirin
Kunishima, 1997
Cilostazol 200 mg qD unspecified durationg qD
versus
Aspirin 81 mg qD
cilostazol + aspirin versus aspirin
Sekiya, 1998
Cilostazol 200 mg qD x6mos Aspirin 81 mg qD
versus
Coumadin unspecified regimen Aspirin 81 mg qD
cilostazol + aspirin versus ticlopidine + aspirin
Kozuma, 2001
Cilostazol 200 mg qD x6 mos Aspirin 81–162 mg qD
versus
Ticlopidine 200 mg qD x6 mos Aspirin 81–162 mg qD
Ochiai, 1999
Cilostazol 100 mg BID x6 mos Aspirin 81 mg TID
versus
Ticlopidine 100 mg BID x1 mo Aspirin 81 mg TID
Park, 1999
Cilostazol 100 mg BID x6 mos Aspirin 200 mg qD
versus
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x4 wks Aspirin 200 mg qD
Yoon, 1999
Cilostazol 100 mg BID x30 days Aspirin 100 mg qD
versus
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x30 days Aspirin 100 mg qD
Kamishirado, 2002
Cilostazol 200 mg qD x6 mos Aspirin 81 mg qD
versus
Ticlopidine 200 mg qD x6 mos Aspirin 81 mg qD
clopidogrel + aspirin versus ticlopidine + aspirin
Müller, 2000
Clopidogrel 75 mg qD x4 wks Aspirin 100 mg qD
versus
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x4 wks Aspirin 100 mg qD
CLASSICS, 2000
Clopidogrel 300mg x1, 75 mg qD x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qDypñ ·`
versus
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qD
TOPPS, 2001
Clopidogrel 300 mg x1, unsp. Dose x2 wks Aspirin 325 mg qD
versus
Ticlopidine 500 mg x1, unsp. Dose x2 wks Aspirin 325 mg qD
Piamsomboon, 2001
Clopidogrel 300 mg x1, 75 mg qD x4 wks Aspirin 300 mg BID x4 wks, 300 mg qD
versus
Ticlopidine 250 mg po BID x4 wks Aspirin 300 mg BID x4 wks, 300 mg qD
clopidogrel+aspirin versus aspirin
REAL-LATE, ZEST-LATE, 2010
NCT00484926
clopidogrel plus aspirin
versus
aspirin alone
patients who had received drugeluting stents and had been free of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events and major bleeding for a period of at least 12 monthsopen
Follow-up duration: 19.2 months
South Korea
dalteparin versus UFH
Natarajan (without antiGp2b3a), 2003
Dalteparin 100 IU/kg bolus
versus
UFH 100 IU/kg bolus
Elective or urgent PCI
dalteparin versus UFH + anti Gp2b3a
Natarajan (+ antiGp2b3a), 2003
Dalteparin 70 IU/kg bolus + GP IIb/IIIa inhibitorse/p
versus
UFH 70 IU/kg bolus +GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors
diltiazem versus control
Corcos, 1985
diltiazem (90 mg tid)
versus
open
Follow-up duration: 3 months
diltiazem versus placebo
O’Keefe, 1991
diltiazem (240-360 mg/day)
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Unverdorben, 1996
diltiazem (180 mg/day)
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: 4 months
Diver versus conventional PCI
De Luca, 2006
Diver
versus
conventional stenting
patients with anterior ST elevation myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
PIHRATE, 2004
Diver
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
REMEDIA, 2005
Diver
versus
standard PCI
patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Sardella, 2005
Diver
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 6 months
elinogrel versus clopidogrel
INNOVATE PCI,
NCT00751231

versus
Endeavor stent and three months of DAPT versus standard 12-month DAPT and other DES
RESET,
NCT01145079

versus
enoxaparin versus UFH
ATOLL, 2010
IV enoxaparin
versus
UFH
patients undergoing PCI for acute STEMI open
Follow-up duration: 30 days
Austria, France, Germany, and US
Brieger,
enoxaparin
versus
unfractionated heparin
patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)
CRUISE, 2003
Enoxaparin 0.75 mg/kg bolus
versus
UFH 60 IU/kg bolus, then titrated to ACT > 200
Urgent or elective PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 2,7 +30 days
Drozd, 2001
Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg bolus
versus
UFH 100 IU/kg bolus
PCI for stable angina
Follow-up duration: 24hrs, 30 days
Dudek, 2000
Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg bolus
versus
UFH titrated to ACT > 300
PCI
Follow-up duration: 3à days
Dudek b (enox alone), 2000
Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg bolus
versus
UFH titrated to ACT > 300
PTCA complex lesionsCI
Galeote, 2001
Enoxaparin 0.75 mg/kg bolus
versus
UFH 70 U/kg bolus, then titrated to ACT > 200
PTCA patients with stable/unstable angina or AMI
Rabah, 1999
Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg bolus
versus
UFH 10,000 IU bolus, then titrated to ACT > 300
PCI for stable anginaopen
STEEPLE, 2006
NCT00077844
enoxaparin (0.5 or 0.75 mg per kilogram of body weight)
versus
unfractionated heparin (adjusted for activated clotting time)
elective percutaneous coronary intervention.open
enoxaparin+abciximab versus UFH
Dubek b (+abciximal), 2001
Enoxaparin 0.75 mg/kg bolus + abciximab
versus
UFH titrated to ACT > 300
Eptifibatide versus placebo
ESPRIT, 2000
loading dose 180µg/kg x2 infusion 2µg/min for 18-24h
versus
Nonurgent PCI
IMPACT (4h), 1995
loading dose 90µg/kg infusion 1.0µg/kg/min for 4h
versus
Elective PCI
IMPACT-II (0.5µg), 1997
loading dose 135µg/kg infusion 0.5µg/kg/min for 20-24h
versus
Any PCI
Harrington, 1995
loading dose µg/kg infusion µg/min for h
versus
Export versus conventional PCI
Lipiecki, 2009
thrombus aspiration group with the Export catheter (n = 20) (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN)
versus
EXPIRA, 2005
Export
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 1, 9 months
Export (Chevalier), 2008
Export
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Noel, 2005
Export
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
TAPAS, 2008
ISRCTN16716833
Export
versus
conventional PCI
patients with myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 1,12 months
Netherlands
FilterWire versus conventional PCI
PROMISE, 2005
FilterWire
versus
control
patients with myocardial infarction with and without ST-segment elevationopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
UpFlow MI, 2007
FilterWire
versus
PCI using regular guidewires
patients with STEMI and coronary angiographic evidence of thrombotic occlusionopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
FilterWireg versus conventional PCI
DEDICATION, 2008
FilterWireg
versus
PCI without distal protection
patients with STEMI referred within 12 h to have PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
fluvastatin versus placebo
FLARE, 1999
Fluvastatin 40 mg twice daily 15–30 d before PCI
versus
placebo
patients undergoing PTCAdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 10 mo
LIPS, 2002
Fluvastatin 40 mg twice daily 0–22 d after PCI
versus
placebo
patients with stable or unstable angina or silent ischemia and successful completion of their first PCIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 45 mo (median)
Guardwire versus conventional PCI
ASPARAGUS, 2008
Guardwire
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay, 6 months
GuardWire versus conventional PCI
EMERALD, 2005
GuardWire
versus
angioplasty without distal protection
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presenting within 6 hours of symptom onset and undergoing primary PCI or rescue intervention after failed thrombolysisopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months
MICADO, 2007
GuardWire
versus
PCI without distal protection
Patients with AMI within 24 hours from onsetopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months
Guardwire versus conventional PCI
Nanasato, 2004
Guardwire
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
GuardWire versus conventional PCI
Ochala, 2007
GuardWire
versus
abciximab
patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction referred for primary percutaneous coronary interventionopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Tahk, 2008
GuardWire
versus
primary angioplasty without distal protection
AMI patients presenting within 12 h of onset of symptomsopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months
high-dose clopidogrel versus normal-dose clopidogrel
GRAVITAS, 2011
NCT00645918
High-dose clopidogrel (600-mg initial dose, 150 mg daily thereafter)
versus
regular clopidogrel dose
patients receiving drug-eluting stents with high residual platelet activity (PRU>=230) on the regular clopidogrel dose (platelet-function tests with the VerifyNow assay 12 to 24 hours after PCI)open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
North America
nicorandil versus control
Nishimura, 2009
nicorandil 15 mg daily
versus
control
Maintenance hemodialysis patients who underwent percutaneous coronary artery intervention and had complete coronary revascularization (absence of both restenosis and de novo coronary lesion) at coronary arteriography 6 months lateropen
Follow-up duration: 2.7 years
Japan
nifedipine versus placebo
Whitworth, 1986
nifedipine (10 mg qid)
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
nisoldipine versus placebo
Dens (CAPARES), 2000
nisoldipine (40 mg/day)
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
omeprazole versus placebo
COGENT, 2009
NCT00557921
CGT-2168 (75-mg clopidogrel with 20 mg of omeprazole) once daily
versus
placebo
patients requiring clopidogrel for at least 12 months, typically following non-ST-segment-elevation ACS, STEMI, or stent implantationdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 133 days (mean)
US, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Chile, and Europe
OCLA, 2008
NCT00349661
omeprazole 20 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients undergoing coronary artery stent implantationdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 7 days
France
pantoprazole versus omeprazole
PACA, 2009
pantoprazole 20 mg
versus
omeprazole 20 mg
patients undergoing coronary stenting for non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome
Follow-up duration: 1 mo
pexelizumab versus placebo
APEX-AMI, 2007
NCT00091637
pexelizumab given as a 2-mg/kg intravenous bolus prior to PCI followed by 0.05-mg/kg per hour infusion over the subsequent 24 hours
versus
placebo
primary angioplasty fo high risk STEMIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
17 countries
prasugrel versus clopidogrel
TRITOM TIMI 38 (PCI subgroup), 2009
prasugrel (60 mg loading, 10 mg maintenance)
versus
clopidogrel (300 mg loading, 75 mg maintenance)
subgroup of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction
JUMBO-TIMI 26, 2005
Prasugrel 3 doses
versus
clopidogrel 300mg loading dose followed by 75 mg daily)
patients undergoing elective or urgent percutaneous coronary interventiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
pravastatin versus placebo
PREDICT, 1997
Pravastatin 40 mg/d 1 d after PCI
versus
placebo
patient undergoing PCIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy versus 12 months dual antiplatelet
DES-LATE, 2010
NCT00484926
dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel plus aspirin)
versus
aspirin alone
patients who had received drug eluting stents and had been free of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events and major bleeding for a period of at least 12 monthsopen
Follow-up duration: 19.2 mo
South Korea
Pronto versus conventional PCI
DEAR-MI, 2006
NCT00257153
Pronto
versus
primary percutaneous coronary intervention
patients with STEMI, admitted within 12 h of symptom onsetopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
radial versus femoral
Grinfeld, 1996
Radial
versus
femoral
Diagnostic coronary angiographyopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
ACCESS , 1997
Radial (6F)
versus
femoral (6F)
patients undergoing PTCAopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Achenbach , 2005
Radial
versus
femoral
Patients age >75 undergoing coronary angiographyopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Bodi, 2008
Right or Left radial
versus
femoral
Patients with STEMI for primary PCIopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
BRAFE , 1997
Radial (6F)
versus
femoral (6F)
Elective PCI with stentopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
CARAFE , 2001
Radial (5 or 6F)
versus
femoral (5F or 6F with perclose if PCI)
Coronary angiography or PCIopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Cooper , 1999
Radial (4F)
versus
femoral (5F or 6F)
Diagnostic coronary angiographyopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
FARMI , 2007
Radial (5F)
versus
femoral (6F)
Patients with STEMI for primary or rescue PCIopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Gorge and Kirstein, 2001
Radial
versus
femoral
Coronary angiography or PCIopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Lange and von Boetticher, 2006
Radial
versus
femoral (5F)
Coronary angiography or PCIopen
Follow-up duration: End of procedure
Li , 2007
Radial
versus
femoral
Coronary angiography or PCIopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Mann , 1996
Right radial (6F)
versus
femoral (6F)
PTCAopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Mann , 1998
Radial (6F)
versus
femoral (6F or 7F)
Patients with ACS undergoing PCI with stentopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Monsegu , 2000
Left radial (5F)
versus
femoral (4F)
Diagnostic coronary angiographyopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Moriyama , 2002
Radial (4F)
versus
femoral (4F)
Diagnostic coronary angiographyopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
OCTOPLUS , 2004
Radial
versus
femoral
Patients age >80 undergoing coronary angiography or PCIopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
OUTCLAS , 2005
Radial (6F)
versus
femoral
Outpatients referred for PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
RADIAL AMI , 2005
Radial
versus
Patients with STEMI for primary or rescue PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
RADIAMI , 2007
Radial
versus
femoral with closure device
Patients with STEMI for primary or rescue PCIopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Reddy , 2004
Radial (6F)
versus
femoral (4F) or femoral with angioseal closure
Diagnostic coronary angiographyopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
TEMPURA , 2003
Radial (6F)
versus
femoral (6F)
Patients with STEMI for primary PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Tian , 2003
Radial
versus
femoral
Diagnostic coronary angiographyopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Vazquez-Rodriguez, 2004
Radial
versus
femoral
open
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Rescue versus conventional PCI
Dudek, 2004
Rescue (followed by stent implantation)
versus
PCI with stent implantation alone
patient with acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevationopen
Follow-up duration: hospital stay
Kaltoft, 2006
Rescue
versus
standard PCI
patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction lasting <12 hours undergoing primary PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
NONSTOP, 2004
Rescue
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: Hospital
reviparin versus UFH
REDUCE, 1996
Reviparin 7,000 IU anti-Xa
versus
UFH 10,000 IU bolus
PTCA with stable/unstable anginadouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3 days
Europe and Canada
SCH 530348 versus placebo
TRA-PCI, 2009
NCT00132912
SCH 530348 3 doses: 10mg, 20mg and 40mg
versus
placebo
patients aged 45 years or older and undergoing non-urgent PCI or coronary angiography with planned PCIdouble-blind
SpideRX versus conventional PCI
PREMIAR, 2007
SpideRX
versus
PCI without embolic protection
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)open
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months
sulotroban versus placebo
M-HEART II (sulotroban), 1995

versus
placebo
patients undergoing PTCAdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
thrombectomy versus conventional PCI
Ciszewski, 2011
aspiration thrombectomy
versus
high risk patients with STEMI and angiographic evidence of thrombus
Liistro, 2009
thrombus-aspiration PCI
versus
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
INFUSE AMI, 2013
manual thrombus aspiration
versus
patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction caused by proximal or mid left anterior descending artery occlusion undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin anticoagulation
Chao, 2008
initial thrombosuction
versus
STEMI patients within 12 h from onset
MUSTELLA,
thrombectomy
versus
TROPHI,
thrombectomy
versus
thrombectomy versus PCI only
TASTE (Fröbert), 2013
NCT01093404
manual thrombus aspiration followed by PCI
versus
patients with STEMI undergoing PCI
TOTAL, 2015
NCT01149044
routine upfront manual thrombectomy
versus
PCI alone
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI
ticlopidine versus placebo
TACT, 1990
ticlopidine 500, aspirin 650 + D225
versus

Follow-up duration: 6m
White (ticlopidine), 1991
ticlopidine 500, aspirin 650 + D225
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 6m
ticlopidine + aspirin versus aspirin
STARS (vs aspirin), 1998
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qDDage/pj
versus
Aspirin 325 mg qD
Hall, 1996
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 1 mo Aspirin 325 mg qD 5 days
versus
Aspirin 325 mg qD
ticlopidine + aspirin versus coumadin + aspirin
STARS (vs coumadin+asp), 1998
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qD
versus
Coumadin INR 2–2.5 x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qDBID
FANTASTIC, 1998
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 6 wks Aspirin 100–325 mg qD
versus
Coumadin INR† 2.5–3.0 6 wks Aspirin 100–325 mg qD/pj
ISAR, 1996
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 4 wks Aspirin 100 mg BIDage/pj
versus
Coumadin INR 3.5–4.5 4 wks Aspirin 100 mg BID
MATTIS, 1998
Ticlopidine 250 mg BID 30 days Aspirin 250 mg qD
versus
Coumadin INR 2.5–3.0 x30 days Aspirin 250 mg qDg qD/pj
Foussas, 2000
Ticlopidine 500mg qD 1 mo Aspirin 325 mg qD
versus
Coumadin INR 2–3 x4 wks Aspirin 325 mg qDg BID
Tirofiban versus placebo
RESTORE, 1997
loading dose 10µg/kg infusion 0.15µg/kg/min for 36h
versus
PCI <72 h after USA or MI
Kereiakis, 1996
loading dose µg/kg infusion µg/min for h
versus
triple antiplatelet versus dual antiplatelet therapy
CILON-T, 2010
triple antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, and cilostazol for 6 month
versus
dual antiplatelet therapy
real-world patients undergoing PCI
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
triple therapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy
WOEST,
NCT00769938
oral anticoagulants, aspirin and clopidogrel
versus
oral anticoagulants, clopidogrel
TVAC versus conventional PCI
VAMPIRE, 2004
TVAC
versus
conventional PCI
patients with acute myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 8 months
various statins versus placebo
Briguori, 2004
physician preference 3–31 d before PCI
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: <24h
verapamil versus placebo
Hoberg, 1994
verapamil (240 mg bid)
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
X-sizer versus conventional PCI
Beran, 2002
X-sizer
versus
conventional PCI
patients with ACS and suspected intracoronary thrombusopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
Napodano, 2003
X-sizer
versus
conventional strategy of stenting
patients with AMI and angiographic evidence of intraluminal thrombusopen
Follow-up duration: 1 month
X AMINE ST, 2005
X-sizer
versus
standard PCI
patients with AMI <12 h and initial TIMI flow grade 0 to 1 and who were treated by PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 6 months