Comparative effectiveness of upstream glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes: an Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) substudy

Efficacy of Tirofiban Administered at Different Time Points after Intravenous Thrombolytic Therapy with Alteplase in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of tirofiban administered at different time points within 24 hours of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

Patients who underwent intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase and fulfilled other inclusion criteria were randomly divided into 4 groups according to the time points of tirofiban administration: Group A (2 h), Group B (2-12 h), Group C (12-24 h), and Group D (control). The changes in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, modified Rankin Scale score, and adverse events were analyzed.

RESULTS

At 7 ± 1 day, the efficacy in Group A was better than that in Group C (P = .006) and Group D (P = .001), but there was no significant difference in the efficacy between Groups A and B (P = .268). Similarly, at 14 ± 2 d, the efficacy in Group A was better than that in Group C (P = .026) and Group D (P = .001), but there was no significant difference in the efficacy between Groups A and B (P = .394). As evaluated by the modified Rankin Scale, the prognosis in Groups A, B, and C was better than that in Group D (P = .042, .008, .027, respectively), which was unrelated to the time points of tirofiban administration. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events among the four groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban combined with alteplase is effective and safe, and particularly beneficial when administered at 2 hour and 2-12 hours after intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in acute ischemic stroke.

Intracoronary administration of tirofiban during percutaneous coronary intervention facilitates patients with acute coronary syndrome

We assessed the efficacy and safety of tirofiban intracoronary versus intravenous administration during percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome. The databases of PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang Database were retrieved. A total of 437 articles were found, according to inclusive and exclusive criteria, 13 of which were finally included. Compared with subjects with intravenous administration, those with intracoronary administration were more likely to reach thrombolysis in myocardial infarction trial grade 3 flow (relative risk = 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.11–1.22), improve left ventricular ejection fraction (Standardized mean difference = 0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.20–1.11). Intracoronary administration resulted in a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at 30-day follow-up (relative risk = 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.34–0.65). However, incidence of bleeding complications was not statistically significant between two groups (relative risk = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.55–1.04). Intracoronary administration of tirofiban can be more effective in increasing coronary blood flow and microvascular perfusion, more effective in improving postoperative myocardial reperfusion, more significantly in reducing the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events at 30-day’s follow-up and improving the prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention without increasing the risk of bleeding.

Comparison of 1-year Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Receiving Intracoronary Bolus Only Versus Intracoronary Bolus Plus Infusion of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare intracoronary (IC) bolus only with IC bolus plus maintenance intravenous (IV) infusion of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GP IIb/IIIa) inhibitors with respect to 1-year major adverse cardiac events including mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, and bleeding events after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

This is an observational study of 233 consecutive patients who presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and underwent primary PCI between April 2009 and December 2012. Patients were grouped into (1) patients who received IC bolus only (n = 102) and (2) patients who received IC bolus plus maintenance IV infusion of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (n = 131). In-hospital post procedural myocardial infarction occurred in 4 (1.7 %) of patients.

RESULTS

Mortality occurred in one patient who was treated with IV infusion. Major bleeding occurred in only 5 patients, among whom 4 patients had received GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors IV infusion. However, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.389).

CONCLUSION

Both univariate analysis and the adjusted model for the potential confounders revealed no significant association between the way of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors administration and 1-year major adverse cardiac events. Our findings suggested that IV infusion of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors after the bolus dose is not associated with better 1-year outcome after adjustment for confounding variables. Moreover, IV infusion may increase the risk of major bleedings after primary PCI. This finding implies that the need for IV infusion of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients undergoing primary PCI is under question.