Administration of intracoronary eptifibatide during ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Efficacy and safety of intracoronary versus intravenous tirofiban in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Effective antiplatelet therapy is critical for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and receiving primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PPCI). Intracoronary (IC) and intravenous (IV) administration of tirofiban are commonly used during the procedure of PPCI. However, which is the better administration route of tirofiban have not been fully evaluated.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of RCTs that comparing IC with IV tirofiban in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI was conducted, which were published as of May 7, 2022, in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint was in-hospital bleeding events.

Results

This meta-analysis included 9 trials involving 1177 patients. IC tirofiban significantly reduced the incidence of 30-day MACE (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.95, P = 0.028) and improved the rate of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow in high-dose (25 μg/kg) group (RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.99-1.30, P = 0.001), in-hospital (WMD 2.03, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.02, P < 0.001), and 6-month left ventricular injection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 6.01, 95% CI: 5.02 to 6.99, P < 0.001) compared with IV. There was no significant difference in the incidences of in-hospital bleeding events (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.38, P = 0.82) and thrombocytopenia (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.26 to 1.57, P = 0.32) between the two groups.

Conclusions

IC tirofiban significantly improved the incidence of TIMI 3 in the high-dose group, in-hospital and 6-month LVEF, and reduced the 30-day MACE incidence without increasing the risk of bleeding compared with IV.

Intracoronary versus Intravenous eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; a randomized controlled trial

Although aspirin and clopidogrel seem to be quite enough during low risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the combination may need some reinforcement in complex situations such as primary PCI. By modifying the route and also the duration of administration, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors might be a viable option. The aim of this study is to compare the benefits and disadvantages of three different methods of administration of eptifibatide in primary PCI population. Primary PCI candidates were randomized in three groups on which three different methods of administration of eptifibitide were tested: intravenous bolus injection followed by 12-h infusion (IV-IV), intracoronary bolus injection followed by intravenous infusion (IC-IV) and, only intracoronary bolus injection (IC). 99 patients were included in the present study. There was no significant difference among the three groups regarding all cause in hospital and one month mortality (p value = 0.99), re-myocardial infarction (p value = 0.89), post-PCI TIMI flow grade 3 (p value = 0.97), ST segment resolution (p value = 0.77) and peak troponin levels (p value = 0.82). The comparison of vascular access and major bleeding complications were not possible due to low events rate. By modifying the route of administration of eptifibitide, the clinical effect might be preserved without increasing the short-term mortality and procedural failure.

Comparison between the Outcomes of Intracoronary and Intravenous Administration of Eptifibatide during Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

AIM

To compare the outcomes of intracoronary (IC) and intravenous (IV) administration of eptifibatide during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

In this prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial, 76 patients with STEMI selected for PPCI were randomly assigned in two groups to receive either IC or IV bolus of eptifibatide. The primary end point was coronary perfusion assessment by thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade (TFG), TIMI perfusion grade (TPG), and corrected TIMI frame count (cTFC). Secondary end points were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) restoration, ST-segment elevation resolution, and in-hospital major cardiovascular adverse events (MACEs) (including recurrent MI, need for target vessel revascularization (TVR), stroke, and death resulting from any cause) until discharge.

RESULTS

Assessment revealed significantly better TFG (95% CI: 1.01-10.26, OR=3.224, P=0.042), more TFG 3 (65.79% vs. 86.11% in IV and IC groups, respectively), better TPG (P=0.024), more achieved TPG 3 and TPG 2＋3 (TPG 3: 44.74% vs. 72.22% and TPG 2＋3: 78.95% vs. 94.44% in the IV and IC groups, respectively) with better cTFC in the IC group (37.33±15.84 vs. 32.53± 20.71 in the IV and IC groups, respectively; P=0.034). LVEF was better restored in the IC group (6.21±8.61% vs. 14.72±5.34% in the IV and IC groups, respectively; P＜0.001) and the ST-segment elevation resolution was better achieved in the IC administration (95% CI: -22.55 to -6.23, P=0.001). There were no recurrent MI, stroke, or need for TVR among patients during the in-hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

IC administration of eptifibatide during PPCI in patients with STEMI in comparison with IV administration of eptifibatide is associated with significantly better coronary reperfusion and improved clinical outcomes (IRCT2012090510751N1).

Effect of Early Treatment With Tirofiban on Initial TIMI Grade 3 Flow of Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background:

Before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), it is not clear whether a routine early administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the emergency ward is beneficial or their administration in selected cases in the catheterization laboratory.

Objectives:

The present randomized clinical trial sought to investigate whether an earlier administration of Tirofiban could exert any impact on TIMI grade 3 flows and ST resolution in the electrocardiography of patients with STEMI before primary PCI.

Materials and Methods:

Patients with STEMI within twelve hours of symptom commencement were included if primary PCI was planned to be performed within ninety minutes of admission and excluded if they had contraindications for Tirofiban. Seventy patients were randomized to receive 25 μg/kg of bolus Tirofiban early in the emergency ward (the early Tirofiban group) in three minutes and 70 did not receive Tirofiban (the control group). The primary endpoint of the study was a Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flows on the initial angiogram. The study is registered as IRCT201105126463N1 in: www.irct.ir.

Results:

The study population had a mean age of 57.17 ± 10.09 years and included 79.3 % males. TIMI grade 3 flow was seen in 15 (21.4 %) patients of the Tirofiban group and 7 (10 %) of the control group (P = 0.06, odds ratio = 0.407, and 95 % confidence interval = 0.155-1.072). Complete ST resolution was seen in 30 (42.9 %) patients of the Tirofiban group and 34 (48.6 %) of the control group (P = 0.5).

Conclusion:

Although TIMI grade 3 flows trended to be higher in the patients who received early Tirofiban in the emergency ward, the difference did not constitute statistical significance and possible benefits, therefore, require further clarification.

Recent Advances in the Treatment of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) represents the most urgent condition for patients with coronary artery disease. Prompt diagnosis and therapy, mainly with primary angioplasty using stents, are important in improving not only acute survival but also long-term prognosis. Recent advances in angioplasty devices, including manual aspiration catheters and drug-eluting stents, and pharmacologic therapy, such as potent antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents, have significantly enhanced the acute outcome for these patients. Continuing efforts to educate the public and to decrease the door-to-balloon time are essential to further improve the outcome for these high-risk patients. Future research to normalize the left ventricular function by autologous stem cell therapy may also contribute to the quality of life and longevity of the patients surviving STEMI.

Microvascular effect of intracoronary eptifibatide in acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

In this prospective, randomized trial in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admitted for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), loaded with 600 mg clopidogrel, we hypothesized that eptifibatide administered downstream of the coronary occlusion leads to a lower degree of microvascular obstruction compared with no additional eptifibatide.

METHODS

Fifty patients with AMI, loaded with 600 mg of clopidogrel at the first hospital contact, with occlusion of the left anterior descending artery (LAD), were randomized to an eptifibatide group (EG) or a control group (CG). In both groups, stenting was performed after thrombus aspiration. Microvascular reperfusion was assessed by angiography, electrocardiography, and transthoracic Doppler ultrasonography of the LAD.

RESULTS

TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 2-3 was not different between the EG (72%) and the CG (84%) (p = 0.31). ST segment resolution >70% was similarly detected in both groups (32 vs. 40%; p = 0.56). The mean diastolic deceleration time did not differ significantly between the CG (856.36 ± 397.88 ms) and the EG (935.72 ± 252.22 ms) (p = 0.41). Multivariate logistic regression revealed no significant influence of the treatment with eptifibatide on ST segment resolution (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.11-2.10, p = 0.32), TIMI myocardial perfusion (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.10-2.59, p = 0.42), and diastolic deceleration time (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.03-1.51, p = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

In AMI patients loaded with 600 mg of clopidogrel undergoing PPCI, intracoronary administration of eptifibatide does not clearly improve microvascular obstruction.

Clinical outcomes of intracoronary eptifibatide bolus only versus intracoronary bolus and intravenous infusion of eptifibatide in primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Intracoronary bolus of eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been shown to result in higher local platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor occupancy with improved microvascular perfusion. It is unclear whether intracoronary administration of eptifibatide in a larger patient population results in favourable clinical outcomes. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of two regimens of intracoronary eptifibatide (bolus only versus bolus followed by intravenous infusion) in patients undergoing primary PCI for ST-elevation MI. They were divided into two groups: Group A (n=67) who received fixed-dose intracoronary eptifibatide bolus only and Group B (n=88) who received intracoronary bolus and continuous intravenous infusion of eptifibatide for 18 h. The preliminary findings from our registry showed that both regimens were associated with good angiographic outcomes, few bleeding events and low in-hospital major adverse cardiac events. A large prospective randomized, multi-centre trial is needed to confirm our observation.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome

It is unclear whether intracoronary (IC) bolus administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndromes is superior to intravenous (IV) administration. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effects of IC and IV administrations of GPIs in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for RCTs comparing IC to IV administration of GPIs (abciximab, eptifibatide, tirofiban) during PCI. Data were pooled and stratified into short (1 month to 3 months) and mid-/long-term (≥6 months) follow-up durations. Ten RCTs involving 1,590 patients met our inclusion criteria. Compared to the IV group the IC group was more likely to have complete perfusion (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 3 flow) after PCI (risk ratio [RR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.15). IC administration was associated with similar bleeding rates as IV (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24) but with a significant decrease in short-term target vessel revascularization (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96). IC administration was also associated with a significant decrease in short-term mortality (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.90) but this decrease was no longer significant in mid-/long-term RCTs. In conclusion, compared to IV administration IC administration of GPIs has favorable effects on Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow, target vessel revascularization, and short-term mortality after PCI, with no difference in rates of bleeding. Data regarding mid-/long-term outcomes were limited and inconclusive. Large RCTs with longer follow-up are required to determine long-term safety and efficacy.

Intracoronary Eptifibatide Bolus Administration During Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization for Acute Coronary Syndromes With Evaluation of Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Receptor Occupancy and Platelet Function

Background— Eptifibatide reduces major adverse cardiac events in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intracoronary bolus administration of eptifibatide may result in higher levels of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor occupancy in the local coronary bed, disaggregate thrombus in the epicardial artery and microvasculature, and thereby improve coronary flow.

Methods and Results— Patients undergoing PCI for an acute coronary syndrome were randomized to either intracoronary or intravenous bolus administration of eptifibatide. The primary end point was the local glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor occupancy measured in the coronary sinus. There were no angiographic, electrophysiological, or other adverse findings attributable to intracoronary eptifibatide. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor occupancy was significantly greater with intracoronary versus intravenous administration: first bolus, 94±9% versus 51±15% ( P <0.001); and second bolus, 99±2% versus 91±4% ( P =0.001), respectively. Microvascular perfusion was significantly improved as measured by the corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (cTFC) with intracoronary versus intravenous administration: pre-PCI, 36 (median) (25th and 75th percentiles, 16 and 64) versus 31 (25th and 75th percentiles, 23 and 45; P =0.8); and post-PCI, 18 (25th and 75th percentiles, 10 and 22) versus 25 (25th and 75th percentiles, 22 and 35; P =0.007), respectively. The only multivariate predictor associated with a post-PCI cTFC rank score was the first bolus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor occupancy ( P <0.001).

Conclusions— Intracoronary bolus administration of eptifibatide during PCI in patients with acute coronary syndromes results in higher local platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor occupancy, which is associated with improved microvascular perfusion demonstrated by an improved cTFC.

Immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary stand-alone bolus administration of eptifibatide during coronary intervention (ICE) study

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary (i.c.) eptifibatide administration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several studies tested intravenous (i.v.) bolus and continuous administration of eptifibatide during PCI. However, limited data are available regarding giving eptifibatide as i.c. bolus alone during PCI.

METHODS

We studied clinical outcomes of 376 patients who received coronary stent(s) and eptifibatide by 3 applications during PCI and were followed up over 24 months. Group A (119 patients) had i.c. eptifibatide bolus only, group B (119 patients) had i.c. bolus and i.v. infusion, and group C (138 patients) had i.v. bolus and infusion. The standard 2 boluses of eptifibatide 180 microg/kg were given either via i.c. or i.v. route, and only groups B and C received i.v. infusion at 2 microcg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 18 to 24 hours.

RESULTS

There were 256 males and 120 females, with a mean age of 57 +/- 11 years. Among them, 52% were diabetic. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative composite end point of death and myocardial infraction was lower in group A (2.5%) compared with group C (10.8%, odds ratio [OR] 4.3, P = .029) and group B (5.8%, OR 2.6, P = .17). Compared with group A, target vessel revascularization was 3-fold in group C (OR 3.3, P = .001) and 2-fold in group B (OR 2.0, P = .061). Bleeding was significantly higher in group C (OR 5.4, P < .0001) and group B (OR 3.4, P = .007) compared with group A. Rehospitalization was significantly lower in group A (10.9%) compared with group B (16.8%) and group C (28%) (P = .0009).

CONCLUSION

The i.c.-bolus-alone application of eptifibatide may be safer and superior to the i.v. route, and continuous infusion may not be necessary. Large-scale prospective randomized trials are needed to further validate these findings.