Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors use in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction in patients pre-treated with newer P2Y12 inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate the safety and potential benefit of administrating glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) on top of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors.

BACKGROUND

A number of clinical trials, performed at a time when pretreatment and potent platelet inhibition was not part of routine clinical practice, have documented clinical benefits of GPI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients at the cost of a higher risk of bleeding.

METHODS

We used the data of a prospective, ongoing registry of patients admitted for STEMI in our center. For the purpose of this study only patients presenting for primary percutaneous coronary intervention and pretreated with new P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel or ticagrelor) were included. We compared patients who received GPI with those who did not.

RESULTS

Eight hundred twenty-four STEMI patients were included in our registry; GPIs were used in 338 patients (41%). GPI patients presented more often with cardiogenic shock and Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade <3. GPI use was not associated with an increase in in-hospital or 3-month mortality. Bleeding endpoints were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that GPI may be used safely in combination with recent P2Y12 inhibitors in STEMI patients in association with modern primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategies (radial access and anticoagulation with enoxaparin) with similar bleeding and mortality rates at hospital discharge and 3-month follow-up.

Efficacy and safety of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in addition to P2Y12 inhibitors in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A subanalysis of the POPular Genetics trial

BACKGROUND

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) are still used in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), although discussion about its clinical benefit is ongoing.

METHODS

GPI use was analyzed in this subanalysis of the POPular Genetics trial, which randomized STEMI patients to CYP2C19 genotype-guided treatment (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) or standard treatment with ticagrelor/prasugrel. The composite thrombotic endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis, and stroke at 30 days. The combined bleeding endpoint consisted of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major and minor bleeding at 30 days. Univariable and multivariable analyses in addition to a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 2378 patients, of whom 1033 received GPI and 1345 did not, were included. In multivariable analysis, GPI administration was associated with fewer thrombotic events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.55) and MIs (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.73). Furthermore, GPI administration was associated with an increase in bleedings (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.27-3.19), driven by minor bleedings (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.43-3.76), without a significant difference in major bleedings (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.19-2.57). In the PSM analysis, no significant association was found.

CONCLUSION

In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, GPI administration was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events at a cost of an increase in (mostly minor) bleedings in multivariable analysis, while propensity score analysis did not show significant associations.

Bridging the gap: Current and future insights for improving suboptimal platelet inhibition in STEMI

Antiplatelet therapy is one of the cornerstones in the acute treatment of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, hemodynamic changes and delayed intestinal absorption of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors leads to a delay in the onset of antiplatelet effects resulting in a gap of platelet inhibition. Several strategies have been proposed to bridge this gap, such as pre-hospital administration of antiplatelet therapy, higher loading doses of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, crushing or chewing tablets, subcutaneous or intravenous administration of platelet inhibitors, or use of pain relievers alternative to opioids that do not delay intestinal absorption of oral platelet inhibitors. These strategies may improve platelet inhibition with the goal of optimizing clinical outcomes in the acute phase of STEMI. In this review we present current and future insights for bridging the gap in platelet inhibition in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.

Safety and benefit of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in out of hospital cardiac arrest patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at higher risk of both stent thrombosis and bleeding. The use of aggressive antiplatelet therapy could lead to a higher risk of bleeding in these patients. Indeed, data on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPi) use in this specific indication is scarce.

AIM

We sought to evaluate the benefit and safety of GPi use in OHCA patients requiring PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between January 2007 and December 2017, we retrospectively included all consecutive patients treated with PCI for an OHCA from cardiac cause. Clinical, procedural data and in-hospital outcomes were collected. Three hundred and eighty-five patients were included. GPi were administrated in 41.3% of cases (159 patients). Patients who received GPi were younger, had less prior PCI, more often a TIMI 0 or 1 flow before PCI and thromboaspiration use. There were no differences regarding in-hospital definite stent thrombosis among the two groups (11.9% in the GPi group vs 7.1% in the non-GPi group, p = 0.10) or in-hospital mortality (48.6% vs 49.3%, p = 0.68). The incidence of any bleeding (33.3% vs. 19.6%; p = 0.002), and major bleeding (BARC 3-5) (21.9% vs. 16.8%; p = 0.007) was significantly higher in patients receiving GPi. Indeed, using multivariate analysis, GPi use was predictor of major bleeding (OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.06-3.08; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with PCI for OHCA from cardiac cause, GPi use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events, without difference on in-hospital stent thrombosis or death.