Intracoronary compared to intravenous Abciximab and high-dose bolus compared to standard dose in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a two-by-two factorial placebo-controlled randomized study

Intracoronary versus intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STEMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intracoronary (IC) administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) has been studied as an adjunctive therapy to improve outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IC administration of GPIs compared with those of intravenous (IV) administration in patients with STEMI.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for relevant studies published before September 21, 2022. In total, 22 randomized controlled trials involving 7,699 patients were included.

RESULTS

The proportions of patients achieving thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow, myocardial blush grade 2/3, and complete ST-segment resolution were significantly higher in the IC group than in the IV group. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37-0.80) and heart failure (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.91) within 1 month were significantly lower in the IC group than in the IV group; however, after 6 months, no difference was observed in MACE risk. Additionally, the risks of death and bleeding did not differ between the two routes of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering adjunctive GPI administration for patients with STEMI, the IC route may offer greater benefits than the IV route in terms of myocardial reperfusion and reduced occurrence of MACE and heart failure within 1 month. Nonetheless, when making decisions for IC administration of GPIs, the absence of a benefit for bleeding risk and difficulty accessing the administration route should be considered.

Antiplatelet Agents in Acute ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Platelet aggregation and thrombus formation represent the basic mechanism for clinical, electrocardiographic, and biomarker changes consistent with acute coronary syndrome. Various oral and intravenous formulations of platelet function inhibitors have been developed to help decrease platelet aggregation due to acute atherosclerotic plaque rupture. In this article, we review the various mechanisms, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and the key clinical trials related to the platelet inhibitors that form the basis for current recommendations of their use in the ST elevation myocardial infarction guidelines by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association.

Role of trans-radial band protocols in radial artery occlusion: Randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Radial artery occlusion is a common complication of coronary angiography via radial artery, attributed to the prolonged use of trans-radial band post procedure. Literature suggests there is no standard protocol for radial band deflation, and it varies across institutions. However, the protocol suggested by Cohen and Alfonso is widely used globally. This study aims to test whether our hospital's radial band deflation protocol is non-inferior to the protocol of Cohen and Alfonso, which affirms lesser complications.

METHODS

This is an outcome assessor blinded, non-inferiority trial conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Karachi. We enrolled 100 patients who underwent coronary angiography from radial access and gave written informed consent. The intervention group received protocol A, that is in practice at the institution, while the control group received protocol B, developed by Cohen and Alfonso. The primary outcome was occurrence of radial artery occlusion at 24 h. The secondary outcomes included hematoma and bleeding after radial band removal.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants in the trial was 58.3 ± 11.5 years, while 63% of them were men. Participants in both the groups had similar baseline characteristics. Radial artery occlusion was not significantly different between protocol A and protocol B (10% vs. 14%, p = 0.49, respectively). Similarly, hematoma and bleeding after trans-radial band removal showed no statistical difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Trans-radial band deflation practice at our institution was non-inferior to Cohen and Alfonso's protocol in the incidence of radial artery occlusion after coronary angiography.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov) with registration number NCT03298126.

Intracoronary compared with intravenous bolus tirofiban on the microvascular obstruction in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI: a cardiac MR study

To investigate the potential effect of intracoronary administration of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban on the microvascular obstruction (MVO) assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging compared to the intravenous route in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Two hundred eight patients were randomized into two groups (tirofiban i.v. and tirofiban i.c.). CMR was completed within 3-7 days after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. One hundred thirty-two patients had a follow-up CMR at 6 months after discharge. The primary end point was the CMR measurements including myocardium strain, myocardial perfusion index, final infarct size, prevalence and extent of MVO, and the change of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) at six months follow-up. The second endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, nonfatal reinfarction and congestive heart failure) in one year. The MVO prevalence and extent [56% versus 36%, p = 0.004; 2.08 (IQR: 1.18-5.07) g versus 1.68 (IQR: 0.30-3.28) g, p = 0.041] showed a significant difference between the intravenous and intracoronary groups. Global left ventricular peak longitudinal strain was significantly different in intracoronary groups compared to intravenous groups, - 12.5 [IQR: - 13.4 to - 10.9] versus - 12.3 [IQR: - 13.4 to - 10.4], respectively (P = 0.042). Infarcted myocardial perfusion index was significantly different in intracoronary groups compared to intravenous groups, 0.11 [IQR: 0.08 to 0.15] versus 0.09 [IQR: 0.07 to 0.14], respectively (P = 0.026). Intracoronary tirofiban was associated with a higher change in LVEDV compared with intravenous group (- 10.2% [IQR: - 13.7% to - 2.6%] versus 1.3% [IQR: - 5.6% to 6.1%], p < 0.001). Intracoronary tirofiban application showed no benefit on the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events during follow-up compared to intravenous administration. This CMR study in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients showed a benefit in MVO and left ventricular remodeling for intracoronary tirofiban administration compared to intravenous administration in patients undergoing PCI.

A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study Comparing Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Abciximab in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Transradial Rescue Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Failed Thrombolysis

The risk and benefit ratio of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors with dual oral antiplatelet therapy after failed thrombolysis and rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. Using a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind design, we compared intravenous (IV) and intracoronary (IC) abciximab delivery in 74 patients referred for rescue transradial PCI. The primary angiographic end points were the final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow and myocardial blush grades. Secondary end points included acute and 6-month outcomes using angiographic parameters, platelet aggregation parameters, cardiac biomarkers, cardiac magnetic resonance measurements (CMR) and clinical end points. After rescue PCI, normal thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flows were obtained in 70% in the IC group, 48% in the IV group, and 71% in the placebo group, respectively (p = 0.056). Final myocardial blush grades 2 and 3 were obtained in 43% and 39% in the IC group, 48% and 26% in the IV group, and 46% and 42% in the placebo group (p = 0.67), respectively. Acutely, peak release of cardiac biomarkers, necrosis size, myocardial perfusion and no-reflow as assessed by CMR, and clinical end points were similar between the groups and did not suggest a benefit for IC or IV abciximab compared with placebo. There was no increase in bleeding or access site-related complications with abciximab compared with placebo. Clinical, angiographic, and CMR outcomes at 6 months remained comparable between the groups. In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting with failed thrombolysis undergoing transradial rescue PCI, IC or IV abciximab had no significant clinical impact.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy during percutaneous coronary interventions: A review for the interventionalist

Pharmacotherapy for percutaneous coronary interventions is essential to optimize the balance between thrombosis and bleeding. Currently, choices abound for the selection of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies during percutaneous intervention (PCI). This review article discusses the mechanisms, pharmacokinetics/dynamics, and clinical data behind the various pharmacotherapies including; aspirin, thienopyridines, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, vorapaxar, heparin, direct thrombin inhibitors, and factor Xa inhibitors.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials of Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The efficacy and safety of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors via intracoronary (IC) route versus the intravenous (IV) route are not well known. We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating the role of IC versus IV glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The analysis included 14 trials with a total of 3,754 patients. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) had no statistically significant difference between the IC and the IV groups (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 1.10). Subgroup analysis showed that short-term MACE (i.e., ≤3 months) was reduced in the IC compared with the IV group; however, long-term MACE (>3 months) was not. IC group was superior in achievement of post-procedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11), myocardial blush grade II to III (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23), ST-segment resolution rates (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29; p = 0.01), and improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (standardized mean difference = 4.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.74). There was a trend for lower stent thrombosis with IC route (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.03). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in all-cause mortality, re-infarction, and major bleeding. In conclusion, despite lack of significant difference in overall MACE outcome, IC glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors may improve short -term MACE, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow, myocardial blush grade II- to III rates, ST-segment resolution, and left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the IV route.

Influence of Tirofiban maintenance duration on patients with acute myocardial infarction treated by percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and short term prognosis of Tirofiban in different treatment duration in patients with acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) combined with intracoronary injection.

METHODS

A total of 125 patients with acute STEMI were enrolled in this study. They were randomly divided into two groups: control group (n = 61) and Tirofiban group (n = 64). The Tirofiban was used by intracoronary and intravenous administration in Tirofiban group which was randomly divided into three sub-groups according to the duration of Tirofiban by persistent intravenous injection for 12 hours, 24 hours or 36 hours. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow and myocardial perfusion grades were recorded immediately after PCI. The adverse cardiac events and cardiac death within 180 days of PCI, and the adverse effects (hemorrhage and thrombocytopenia) were compared between the two groups and within Tirofiban sub-groups.

RESULTS

Grade 3 in myocardial perfusion was significantly better in Tirofiban group than control group (85.94% vs. 72.13%, P = 0.03) after PCI. There was one cardiac death in control group in 180 days after PCI. The adverse cardiac event rates between two groups was significant difference (16 patients in control group and only 8 in Tirofiban group, P = 0.047). There was no significant difference in incidence of hemorrhage complications and platelet counts between two groups. Nevertheless, hemorrhage complications in the 12- and 24-hour subgroups were less than 36-hour subgroup (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous Tirofiban treatment reduced the adverse cardiac events and improved short term prognosis without increasing the adverse reactions of the drugs in patients undergoing PCI. The less rate of hemorrhage complication can be achieved in short-duration of Tirofiban by intravenous injection after PCI.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction

The Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (MI) requires cardiac myocyte necrosis with an increase and/or a decrease in a patient’s plasma of cardiac troponin (cTn) with at least one cTn measurement greater than the 99^th percentile of the upper normal reference limit during: (1) symptoms of myocardial ischemia; (2) new significant electrocardiogram (ECG) ST-segment/T-wave changes or left bundle branch block; (3) the development of pathological ECG Q waves; (4) new loss of viable myocardium or regional wall motion abnormality identified by an imaging procedure; or (5) identification of intracoronary thrombus by angiography or autopsy. Myocardial infarction, when diagnosed, is now classified into five types. Detection of a rise and a fall of troponin are essential to the diagnosis of acute MI. However, high sensitivity troponin assays can increase the sensitivity but decrease the specificity of MI diagnosis. The ECG remains a cornerstone in the diagnosis of MI and should be frequently repeated, especially if the initial ECG is not diagnostic of MI.

There have been significant advances in adjunctive pharmacotherapy, procedural techniques and stent technology in the treatment of patients with MIs. The routine use of antiplatelet agents such as clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor, in addition to aspirin, reduces patient morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a timely manner is the primary treatment of patients with acute ST segment elevation MI. Drug eluting coronary stents are safe and beneficial with primary coronary intervention. Treatment with direct thrombin inhibitors during PCI is non-inferior to unfractionated heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists and is associated with a significant reduction in bleeding. The intra-coronary use of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonist can reduce infarct size. Pre- and post-conditioning techniques can provide additional cardioprotection. However, the incidence and mortality due to MI continues to be high despite all these recent advances. The initial ten year experience with autologous human bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMCs) in patients with MI showed modest but significant increases in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, decreases in LV end-systolic volume and reductions in MI size. These studies established that the intramyocardial or intracoronary administration of stem cells is safe. However, many of these studies consisted of small numbers of patients who were not randomized to BMCs or placebo. The recent LateTime, Time, and Swiss Multicenter Trials in patients with MI did not demonstrate significant improvement in patient LV ejection fraction with BMCs in comparison with placebo. Possible explanations include the early use of PCI in these patients, heterogeneous BMC populations which died prematurely from patients with chronic ischemic disease, red blood cell contamination which decreases BMC renewal, and heparin which decreases BMC migration. In contrast, cardiac stem cells from the right atrial appendage and ventricular septum and apex in the SCIPIO and CADUCEUS Trials appear to reduce patient MI size and increase viable myocardium. Additional clinical studies with cardiac stem cells are in progress.

Pharmacotherapy in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: evolution and recent developments

Many recent innovations have been made in developing new antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs in the last few years, with a total of nine new antithrombotic drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration after the year 2000. This has revolutionized the medical therapy given to manage acute coronary syndrome and support cardiac catheterization. The concept of dual antiplatelet therapy has been emphasized, and clopidogrel has emerged as the most-popular second antiplatelet drug after aspirin. Newer P2Y12 inhibitors like prasugrel and ticagrelor have been extensively studied and compared to clopidogrel. The role of glycoprotein (Gp) IIb/IIIa inhibitors is being redefined. Other alternatives to unfractionated heparin have become available, of which enoxaparin and bivalirudin have been studied the most. Apart from these, many more drugs with novel therapeutic targets are being studied and are currently under development. In this review, current evidence on these drugs is presented and analyzed in a way that would facilitate decision making for the clinician. For this analysis, various high-impact clinical trials, pharmacological studies, meta-analyses, and reviews were accessed through the MEDLINE database. Adopting a unique interdisciplinary approach, an attempt has been made to integrate pharmacological and clinical evidence to better understand and appreciate the pros and cons of each of these classes of drugs.

Coronary thrombus in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI: Prognostic significance and management

Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) usually results from coronary atherosclerotic plaque disruption with superimposed thrombus formation. Detection of coronary thrombi is a poor prognostic indicator, which is mostly proportional to their size and composition. Particularly, intracoronary thrombi impair both epicardial blood flow and myocardial perfusion, by occluding major coronary arteries and causing distal embolization, respectively. Thus, although primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred treatement strategy in STEMI setting, the associated use of adjunctive antithrombotic drugs and/or percutaneous thrombectomy is crucial to optimize therapy of STEMI patients, by improving either angiographical and clinical outcomes. This review article will focus on the prognostic significance of intracoronary thrombi and on current antithrombotic pharmacological and interventional strategies used in the setting of STEMI to manage thrombotic lesions.

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.

Appropriate anti-thrombotic/anti-thrombin therapy for thrombotic lesions

Managing coronary thrombus is a challenging task and requires adequate knowledge of the various antithrombotic agents available. In this article, we will briefly analyze the risk-benefit profile of antithrombotic agents, with critical analysis of the scientific evidence available to support their use. Since thrombus consists of platelets and coagulation cofactors, an effective antithrombotic strategy involves using one anticoagulant with two or more antiplatelet agents. Unfractionated heparin traditionally has been the most commonly used anticoagulant but is fast being replaced by relatively newer agents like LMWH, direct thrombin inhibitors, and Factor Xa inhibitors.

In recent years, the antiplatelet landscape has changed significantly with the availability of more potent and rapidly acting agents, like prasugrel and ticagrelor. These agents have demonstrated a sizeable reduction in ischemic outcomes in patients with ACS, who are treated invasively or otherwise, with some concern for an increased bleeding risk. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have an established role in high risk NSTE ACS patients pretreated with dual antiplatelets, but its role in STEMI patients, treated with invasive approach and dual antiplatelets, has not been supported consistently across the studies. Additionally, in recent years, its place as a directly injected therapy into coronaries has been looked into with mixed results. In conclusion, a well-tailored antithrombotic strategy requires taking into account each patient’s individual risk factors and clinical presentation, with an effort to strike balance between not only preventing ischemic outcomes but also reducing bleeding complications.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing intracoronary and intravenous administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPIs) have been widely adopted as an adjuvant regimen during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, but whether intracoronary administration of these potent antiplatelet agents conveys better efficacy and safety over the intravenous route has not been well addressed. A meta-analysis was performed by a systematic search of the published research for randomized controlled trials comparing intracoronary versus intravenous administration of GPIs in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eight studies involving 686 patients in the intracoronary arm and 660 in the intravenous arm met the inclusion criteria. Postprocedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08 to 1.98, p <0.05) and myocardial reperfusion grade 2 or 3 (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.46, p <0.001) were markedly more often achieved in patients who received intracoronary boluses of GPIs than those receiving the intravenous strategy. Intracoronary administration resulted in a reduced incidence of mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.92, p <0.05), target vessel revascularization (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.99, p <0.05), and the composite end point of major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.76, p <0.005) at 30-day follow-up. No significant difference was found in terms of major or minor bleeding (OR 1.14, p = 0.71, and OR 0.86, p = 0.47 respectively). In conclusion, intracoronary administration of GPIs yielded favorable outcomes in postprocedural blood flow restoration and 30-day clinical prognosis in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The intracoronary use of GPIs can be recommended as a preferred regimen during primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

A comparison of intracoronary with intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

It is still debatable whether intracoronary (IC) administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) is superior to intravenous (IV) administration for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. A literature search was conducted for relevant trials. Primary end-points were short-term (1-3 months) and mid-/long-term (6/12 months) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (mortality, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Secondary end-points were thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade flow, TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) flow, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within 2 weeks, and bleeding complication.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. IC administration of GPIs did not decrease short-term mortality (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.41-1.23, P = 0.22) and reinfarction rate (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45-1.29, P = 0.31) compared with IV administration. There was a trend toward reduction of short-term TVR rate in IC group compared with IV group but not reaching statistical significance (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.31-1.04, P = 0.07). IC administration of GPIs significantly increased TIMI grade 3 flow (OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.06-2.06, P = 0.02) and TMPG grade 2-3 flow (OR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.53-4.51, P = 0.0004) compared with IV administration. No significant difference was observed in long-term MACEs rate, LVEF, and bleeding complication between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

IC administration of GPIs in patients with ACS undergoing PCI can significantly increase target coronary flow and myocardial reperfusion without increasing the risk of bleeding complication, but cannot improve clinical outcome compared with IV administration.

Intracoronary versus intravenous bolus abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Intracoronary administration of an abciximab bolus during a primary percutaneous coronary intervention results in a high local drug concentration, improved perfusion, and reduction of infarct size compared with intravenous bolus application. However, the safety and efficacy of intracoronary versus standard intravenous bolus application in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing this intervention has not been tested in a large-scale clinical trial.

METHODS

The AIDA STEMI trial was a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients presenting with STEMI in the previous 12 h with no contraindications for abciximab were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by a central web-based randomisation system to intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab bolus (0·25 mg/kg bodyweight) during percutaneous coronary intervention with a subsequent 12 h intravenous infusion 0·125 μg/kg per min (maximum 10 μg/min). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent infarction, or new congestive heart failure within 90 days of randomisation. Secondary endpoints were the time to occurrence of the primary endpoint, each individual component of that endpoint, early ST-segment resolution, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade, and enzymatic infarct size. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome and its components. Treatment allocation was not concealed from patients and investigators. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00712101.

FINDINGS

Between July, 2008, and April, 2011, 2065 patients were randomly assigned intracoronary abciximab (n=1032) or intravenous abciximab (n=1033). Intracoronary, as compared with intravenous abciximab, resulted in a similar rate of the primary composite clinical endpoint at 90 days in 1876 analysable patients (7·0%vs 7·6%; odds ratio [OR] 0·91; 95% CI 0·64-1·28; p=0·58). The incidence of death (4·5%vs 3·6%; 1·24; 0·78-1·97; p=0·36) and reinfarction (1·8%vs 1·8%; 1·0; 0·51-1·96; p=0·99) did not differ between the treatment groups, whereas less patients in the intracoronary group had new congestive heart failure (2·4%vs 4·1%; 0·57; 0·33-0·97; p=0·04). None of the secondary endpoints or safety measures differed significantly between groups.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, intracoronary as compared to intravenous abciximab did not result in a difference in the combined endpoint of death, reinfarction, or congestive heart failure. Since intracoronary abciximab bolus administration is safe and might be related to reduced rates of congestive heart failure the intracoronary route might be preferred if abciximab is indicated.

FUNDING

Lilly, Germany. University of Leipzig-Heart Centre. University of Leipzig, Clinical Trial Centre Leipzig, supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials comparing intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Abciximab is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor that has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). An earlier study reported better efficacy with intracoronary (IC) compared to intravenous (IV) administration, but this finding has not been duplicated in other studies, thus leaving a great deal of uncertainty as to the most efficacious route of administration. To investigate if IC abciximab compared to IV administration decreases mortality and major adverse cardiac events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who undergo pPCI, a meta-analysis was performed consisting only of prospective randomized controlled trials. Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate the source of difference in efficacy between the 2 strategies. A meta-analysis of 4 trials including 1,148 subjects revealed that IC abciximab significantly reduced mortality compared to IV administration (1.5% vs 3.6%, odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.95, p = 0.04). Major adverse cardiac events were also reduced in a subgroup in which <30% of patients received aspiration thrombectomy (6.1% vs 16.2%, odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.61, p = 0.0004). In conclusion, the totality of the data available from relatively small but high-quality studies shows a significant mortality reduction associated using IC abciximab for pPCI compared to IV abciximab. IC abciximab in the setting of pPCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction may be beneficial for patients with higher risk profiles.

Intracoronary versus intravenous high-dose bolus plus maintenance administration of tirofiban in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction

We aimed to examine whether intracoronary high-dose bolus of tirofiban plus maintenance would result in improved clinical outcome in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI in this pilot trial. A total of 56 patients were enrolled to receive either intracoronary high-dose bolus plus maintenance (n = 34) or intravenous high-dose bolus plus maintenance (n = 22) of tirofiban. Pre and post intervention TIMI flow grades, myocardial blush grades, peak CKMB and troponin levels, time to peak CKMB and troponin, time to 50% ST resolution and major composite adverse cardiac event rates at 30 days were recorded. Although incidence of major adverse cardiac events was not different, post intervention TIMI flow and TIMI blush grades, peak CKMB and troponin levels, and time to peak CKMB and time to peak troponin were significantly different, favoring intracoronary strategy. In conclusion, this regimen improved myocardial reperfusion and coronary flow, and reduced myocardial necrosis, but failed to improve clinical outcomes at 30 days.

Intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration in STEMI patients: overview of current status and open questions

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review to provide rationale for intracoronary (IC) abciximab administration in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), to summarize recent studies comparing IC vs. intravenous (IV) abciximab administration in this setting and to define questions that need to be answered in future trials determining the optimal abciximab regimen.

METHODS

A search covering the period from January 1993 to June 2011 was conducted by two independent investigators using MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases. Proceedings from the scientific sessions of ACC, AHA, ESC, TCT and EuroPCR were also considered.

RESULTS

IC administration allows one to obtain a much higher concentration of abciximab than IV injection at the culprit lesion. Therefore it is hypothesized that IC abciximab administration provides more efficient GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition and more pronounced additional dose-dependent antiplatelet, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory effects when compared to the IV route. Numerous observational and randomized studies comparing IC vs. IV abciximab in STEMI patients indicated improvement in different surrogate end points (infarct size, obstruction of coronary microcirculation, ST segment resolution, inflammatory mediators and markers of platelet activation) related to IC administration. The evidence supporting clinical benefits associated with IC injection of abciximab comes from one randomized and several non-randomized trials as most of the studies were underpowered to assess clinical outcomes. No difference in bleeding complications was observed between IC and IV regimens. Issues that need to be addressed in future studies include: the use of IC abciximab in combination with thrombectomy, the role of selective delivery systems, and the necessity of a prolonged IV infusion of abciximab after IC bolus administration.

CONCLUSIONS

An accumulating body of evidence suggests the superiority of IC over IV abciximab administration in STEMI patients. However, further trials are warranted to establish the optimal strategy of abciximab treatment in this setting.

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.

Clinical efficacy and safety of intracoronary vs. intravenous abciximab administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Adjunctive therapy with abciximab has been proven to reduce mortality and reinfarction in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) referred to invasive management. Standard abciximab regimen consists of an intravenous (IV) bolus followed by a 12-h IV infusion. Experimental studies and small clinical trials suggest the superiority of intracoronary (IC) injection of abciximab over the IV route. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of IC vs. IV abciximab administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The primary endpoint was mortality, while recurrent myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were selected as secondary endpoints. The safety endpoint was the risk of major bleeding complications. A total of six randomized trials were finally included in the meta-analysis, enrolling a total of 1246 patients. Compared to IV route, IC abciximab was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval (CI)] =0.43 [0.20-0.94], p=0.03), and TVR (OR [95% CI] =0.53 [0.29-0.99], p=0.05). No differences in terms of recurrent myocardial infarction (OR [95% CI] =0.54 [0.23-1.28], p=0.17) or major bleeding complications (OR [95% CI] =0.91 [0.46-1.79], p=0.79) were observed between the two strategies. The present meta-analysis showed that IC administration of abciximab is associated with significant benefits in mortality at short-term follow-up compared to IV abciximab administration, without any excess of major bleeding in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI. However, further trials are warranted to establish the optimal strategy of abciximab treatment in this setting.

Effects of aspiration thrombectomy on necrosis size and ejection fraction after transradial percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The use of routine aspiration thrombectomy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial.

METHODS

Patients in the EArly Discharge after Transradial Stenting of CoronarY Arteries in Acute Myocardial Infarction (n = 105) study were treated with aspirin, clopidogrel, and abciximab within 6 hr of symptoms onset. Operators were allowed to use 6 Fr Export aspiration catheter at their discretion. In this observational analysis, we compared acute and late results in patients treated with and without thrombectomy using cardiac biomarkers, angiographic, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), and clinical parameters.

RESULTS

Patients in the thrombectomy group (n = 44) had longer symptoms to balloon time (196 ± 86 min vs. 164 ± 62, P = 0.039) and higher incidence of preprocedural TIMI flow grade 0 or 1 (84% vs. 64%, P = 0.028). Following PCI, both groups had similar incidence of TIMI flow grade 3 (93 vs. 92%, P = 0.73) and myocardial blush grade 2 or 3 (80 vs. 77%, P = 0.86), respectively. Patients in thrombectomy group had significantly higher post-PCI maximum values of creatine kinase-MB (P = 0.0007) and troponin T (P = 0.0010). Accordingly, post-PCI myocardial necrosis by CMR was higher (P = 0.0030) in patients in the thrombectomy group. At 6-month follow-up, necrosis size remained higher (20.7% ± 13.3% vs. 13.5% ± 11.1%, P = 0.012) in the thrombectomy group. Ejection fraction at 6 months was 65% ± 9% in patients in thrombectomy group compared to 70% ± 11% in patients without (P = 0.070). Results were not affected by initial TIMI flow or symptoms to balloon time. Clinical events remained comparable in both groups at 12 months follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presenting within 6 hr of symptoms and undergoing primary angioplasty with maximal antiplatelet therapy, acute and late results did not suggest significant benefit for additional aspiration thrombectomy, irrespective of initial TIMI flow or total ischemic time.

Intracoronary versus intravenous administration of abciximab in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration: the comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration during emergency reperfusion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (CICERO) trial

BACKGROUND

administration of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab is an effective adjunctive treatment strategy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Although small-scale studies have suggested beneficial effects of intracoronary over intravenous administration of abciximab, this has not been investigated in a medium-scale randomized clinical trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

a total of 534 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration within 12 hours of symptom onset were randomized to either an intracoronary or an intravenous bolus of abciximab (0.25 mg/kg). Patients were pretreated with aspirin, heparin, and clopidogrel. The primary end point was the incidence of restored myocardial reperfusion, defined as complete ST-segment resolution. Secondary end points included myocardial reperfusion as assessed by myocardial blush grade, enzymatic infarct size, and major adverse cardiac events at 30 days. The incidence of complete ST-segment resolution was similar in the intracoronary and intravenous groups (64% versus 62%; P=0.562). However, the incidence of myocardial blush grade 2/3 was higher in the intracoronary group than in the intravenous group (76% versus 67%; P=0.022). Furthermore, enzymatic infarct size was smaller in the intracoronary than in the intravenous group (P=0.008). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events was similar in both groups (5.5% versus 6.1%; P=0.786).

CONCLUSIONS

in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration, intracoronary administration of abciximab compared with intravenous administration does not improve myocardial reperfusion as assessed by ST-segment resolution. However, intracoronary administration is associated with improved myocardial reperfusion as assessed by myocardial blush grade and a smaller enzymatic infarct size.