Search

Although there has been enthusiasm for using embolic protection devices in acute myocardial infarction, it is unclear how often these devices can be used in nonselected patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential eligibility for use of either proximal or distal embolic protection during primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention in a consecutive, nonselected population. We analyzed the angiograms of 259 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to determine eligibility for use of either type of protection device. Overall, 202 (78%) patients had anatomy suitable for embolic protection, including 154 (59%) who were eligible for proximal protection, 128 (49%) who were eligible for distal protection, and 80 (31%) who were eligible for both devices. Patients eligible for proximal protection were more likely to have a right coronary culprit, whereas patients eligible for distal protection were more likely to have a lesion in the left anterior descending coronary artery.