Outcomes following bail-out abciximab administration during primary intervention in acute myocardial infarction (The CADILLAC Trial)

Effect of Intravenous Abciximab on Coronary Flow Improvement After Re-vascularization in Primary Coronary Intervention and Short Term Impact

INTRODUCTION

Of recognized fact the importance of early diagnosis and early management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, to regain a normal or at least adequate coronary flow in the Primary Percutaneous Intervention. Slow or no-reflow is suboptimal myocardial reperfusion, without angiographic evidence of mechanical obstruction. Adenosine, Verapamil and saline flush are manoeuvres proved useful. The resolution of ST-segment is associated with successful revascularization and regarded as a predictor for future events. Glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibitors are a group of anti-platelets widely used in acute coronary syndrome.

AIM

The aim of the study was to investigate that: uses of intra venous Abciximab, does not improve coronary flow in patients with MI that develop sub optimal flow after primary PCI within 30 minutes, but the improvement need 12 to 24 hour as founded in other studies, and its beneficial effect is related to early improvement in LV function and decrease of re-infarction and re-hospitalization.

METHOD

Prospective, case-control study, enrolled fifty patients randomly assigned into two matching groups, first group (25 patients) received an intravenous Abciximab while the second group (25 patients) received intracoronary saline flush. Repeated angiography after 30 minutes, for immediate resultant flow assessment, Electrocardiographic changes resolution, bleeding and death. After a 30 days, a clinical assessment for primary outcome including, death, recurrent Myocardial infarction and Heart failure While the Secondary outcome including stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization in addition to the primary outcome.

RESULT

There was no significant difference in the flow Improvement and ECG resolution between both groups. These findings not affected by the door to balloon time. However, patients with flow improvement had a significant resolution in their ECG. Bleeding propensity and mortality were not significantly affected. Literatures proved the benefit of Abciximab in acute coronary syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Both intravenous Abciximab and intracoronary saline flush had comparable effect on coronary flow improvement post primary percutaneous intervention, with minimal variation in the bleeding and in-hospital mortality.

Effects of Bailout Tirofiban on In-Hospital Outcomes and Long-Term Mortality in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Intervention

We retrospectively analyzed short- and long-term outcomes of patients who received bailout tirofiban during primary percutaneous intervention (pPCI). A total of 2681patients who underwent pPCI between 2009 and 2014 were analyzed; 1331 (49.6%) out of 2681 patients received bailout tirofiban. Using propensity score matching, 2100 patients (1050 patient received bail-out tirofiban) with similar preprocedural characteristics were identified. Patients who received bailout tirofiban had a significantly higher incidence of acute stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and major cardiac or cerebrovascular events during the in-hospital period. There were numerically fewer deaths in the bailout tirofiban group in the unmatched cohort (1.7% vs 2.5%, P = .118). In the matched cohort, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower (1.1% vs 2.4%, P = .03), and survival at 12 and 60 months were higher (96.9% vs 95.2%, P = .056 for 12 months and 95.1% vs 92.0%, P = .01 for 60 months) in the bailout tirofiban group. After multivariate adjustment, bailout tirofiban was associated with a lower mortality at 12 months (odds ratio [OR]: 0.554, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.349-0.880, P = .012) and 60 months (OR: 0.595, 95% CI, 0.413-0.859, P = .006). In conclusion, bailout tirofiban strategy during pPCI is associated with a lower short- and long-term mortality, although in-hospital complications were more frequent.

A comparison of rescue and primary percutaneous coronary interventions for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction

Objective

To perform a comparative analysis of in-hospital results obtained from patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), who underwent rescue or primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim is to determine rescue PCI as a practical option for patients with no immediate access to primary PCI.

Methods

From the Cardiology PCI Clinic of the National Hospital of Sri Lanka (NHSL), we selected all consecutive patients presenting with acute STEMI </ = 24 h door-to-balloon delay for primary PCI and </ = 72 h door-to-balloon delay, (90 min after failed thrombolysis) for rescue PCI, from March 2013 to April 2015 and their in-hospital results were analyzed, comparing rescue and primary PCI patients.

Results

We evaluated 159 patients; 78 underwent rescue PCI and 81 underwent primary PCI. The culprit left anterior descending (LAD) vessel (76.9% vs. 58.8%; P = 0.015) was more prevalent in rescue than in primary patients. Thrombus aspiration was less frequent in rescue group (19.2% vs. 40.7%; p = 0.004). The degree of moderate-to-severe left ventricular dysfunction reflected by the ejection fraction <40% (24.3% vs. 23.7%; P = 0.927) and prevalence of multivessel disease (41.0% vs. 43.8%; P = 0.729) revealed no significant difference. Coronary stents were implanted at similar rates in both strategies (96.2% vs. 92.6%; P = 0.331). Procedural success (97.4% vs. 97.5%; P = 0.980) and mortality rates (5.1% vs. 3.8%; P = 0.674), were similar in the rescue and primary groups.

Conclusion

In-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) are similar in both rescue and primary intervention groups, supporting the former as a practical option for patients with no immediate access to PCI facilities.

Tirofiban for myocardial infarction

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Inhibition of platelet aggregation plays a key role in treatment of coronary artery disease.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

Studies on the effects of tirofiban in patients with either ST elevation or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction are reviewed.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Tirofiban is a small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor. If discontinued, the action of tirofiban is faster reversed as abciximab. The dose varied between low (bolus of 0.4 microg/kg administered over 30 min followed by an infusion of 0.10 microg/kg/min), intermediate (bolus of 10 microg/kg administered over 3 min followed by an infusion of 0.15 microg/kg/min) and high (bolus of 25 microg/kg administered over 3 min followed by an infusion of 0.15 microg/kg/min). The high-dose administration especially may be beneficial in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is no indication for tirofiban in patients treated with thrombolysis. Patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction requiring PCI are most likely to benefit from tirofiban if they have ongoing ischemia and/or dynamic ECG changes. The risk of serious bleeding with tirofiban is low and there is a very low risk of thrombocytopenia.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Use of tirofiban for myocardial infarction is effective and has an acceptable safety profile.