A randomized trial assessing the impact of three different glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet receptor inhibition and clinical endpoints in patients with acute coronary syndromes

Efficacy and safety of abciximab versus tirofiban in addition to ticagrelor in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention

Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) have been part of the adjuvant treatment of acute coronary syndrome for years. However, real-life data regarding the efficacy and safety of GPIs under the current indications are lacking in the setting of potent platelet inhibition. The objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of abciximab versus tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and pretreated with ticagrelor, and to identify independent predictor factors of efficacy, bleeding and platelet drop. Three hundred sixty-two patients were divided by GPI administered. Clinical, laboratory, angiographic and outcome characteristics were compared. The primary objective was a composite efficacy endpoint (death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke) at 30 days. The secondary objectives were its individual components, safety (bleeding) and the impact on platelet count during hospital stay. The composite efficacy endpoint was similar in the abciximab and tirofiban groups (6.1% vs 7.3%; p = .632). There were also no differences in cardiovascular death (2.5% vs 2.4%; p = .958), nonfatal myocardial infarction (3% vs 4.3%; p = .521) and nonfatal stroke (0.5% vs 1.8%; p = .332). Tirofiban administration was associated with a higher incidence of bleeding (11.6% vs 22%; p = .008) with no differences in BARC ≥ 3b bleeding (3.6 vs 2.5%; p = .760). In STEMI patients undergoing PPCI with ticagrelor, abciximab and tirofiban had similar rates in the composite efficacy endpoint at 30 days. The 30-day bleeding rate was significantly higher in the tirofiban group. Tirofiban administration was an independent predictor of both bleeding and platelet count drop.

Effects of two different glycoprotein platelet IIb/IIIa inhibitors and the clinical endpoints in patients with intracranial Pipeline flow diverter implant

Objective

To compare the antiplatelet effect and major adverse cerebrovascular events of Pipeline for intracranial aneurysms using glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists (GPI) eptifibatide and tirofiban.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of relevant data of patients using GPIs combined with oral antiplatelet therapy in Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University from December 2017 to December 2019. The study was approved by the ethics Committee of Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University. According to the random use of GPIs drugs, they were assigned to the eptifibatide group and tirofiban group. Basic data, platelet inhibition rates at baseline, 24h and 72h after administration, short-term major adverse cerebrovascular events, and bleeding complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 47 patients were included in this study, including 24 patients in eptifibatide group and 23 patients in tirofiban group. There was no significant difference in average age (53.75 vs. 53.91 years) and body mass index (BMI) (24.39 vs. 22.73 ​kg/m2) between eptifibatide group and tirofiban group. There was no significant difference in coagulation factor function (R), fibrinogen function (K), fibrinolysis function (EPL), comprehensive coagulation index (Cl), arachidonic acid pathway inhibition rate (AA%) and adenosine diphosphate inhibition rate (ADP%). However, the baseline level of residual platelet function MA (ADP) in eptifibatide group was significantly higher than that in tirofiban group (50.79 vs. 35.29 ​mm, P ​= ​0.0026). There was a statistical difference in the platelet aggregation function MA (65.38 vs. 62.54 ​mm, p ​= ​0.0442), the rate of spontaneous hemorrhagic stroke (4.3% vs. 0%) and the rate of asymptomatic minor bleeding (26.08% vs. 4.1%) in the two groups (P ​< ​0.05).

Conclusion

Both eptifibatide and tirofiban can effectively inhibit platelets, but the effect of etifeptide is better than that of tirofiban in preventing intracranial microhemorrhage and asymptomatic cerebral infarction.

Platelet Function and Risk of Bleeding in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Following Tirofiban Infusion

Aim: To assess platelet (PLT) function and bleeding risks in patients with acute coronary syndrome after tirofiban infusion.

Methods: Patients diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome from May 2016 to February 2018 in the Department of Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, Zhongshan Hospital, were enrolled. They were symmetrically allocated into two groups: tirofiban treatment group or control group (without tirofiban treatment). Blood samples were collected 24 h postoperation for the evaluation of antiplatelet effect of tirofiban. We applied thromboelastography to detect on-treatment PLT reactivity and conducted laboratory tests to assess the risk of bleeding following tirofiban treatment. After discharge, telephone follow-up and outpatient interview were carried out. The primary clinical endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular death, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization for the targeted vascular lesion.

Results: There were a total of 196 patients with acute coronary syndrome after screening with the inclusion criteria and the exclusion criteria. Ninety-eight patients were assigned to receive either tirofiban treatment or control treatment. Patients treated with tirofiban had more coronary lesions and stents implanted compared with the control group (P = 0.000). After tirofiban infusion, inhibition of platelet aggregation induced by thromboxane A₂ and adenosine diphosphate was significantly higher compared to patients without tirofiban infusion (80.3% ± 19.6% vs. 72.6% ± 13.0%, P = 0.002; and 81.0% ± 19.8% vs. 75.4% ± 12.4%, P = 0.020, respectively). There was no significant difference in the reduction of hemoglobin (Hb), hematocrit (Hct), and PLT after administration of tirofiban, compared with baseline (P > 0.05). In addition, no significant differences were identified between the two groups with respect to Hb, Hct, and PLT after tirofiban infusion. However, C-reactive protein level, referred to as an inflammation marker, was significantly lowered after infusion tirofiban compared with the control group (11.9 ± 14.2 vs. 17.9 ± 21.2, P = 0.020). During the 1-year follow-up, the incidence rate of major adverse cardiovascular events remains indiscriminate between the two groups (P = 0.208). The assessments of cardiac biomarkers showed that tirofiban could decrease incidence of procedural myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] = 0.250, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.067–0.925, P = 0.027). At follow-up, the morbidity of left atrial dilation in tirofiban-treated patients, defined as enlargement of left atrial diameter >40mm, was lower compared to the control group (OR = 0.533, 95% CI = 0.301–0.945, P = 0.031).

Conclusion: Tirofiban infusion could decrease PLT activation in patients with acute coronary syndrome without increasing the risk of bleeding. As a concomitant medication, tirofiban shows no benefit in reducing the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

Comparison of In-Hospital Bleeding and Cardiovascular Events with High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Shortened Infusion to Short-Duration Eptifibatide as Adjunctive Therapy for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Potent platelet inhibition is one of the most important medical interventions to prevent ischemic complications during and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Practice has evolved with the introduction of potent oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors that provide quick, effective platelet inhibition, and the need for routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) has decreased. Additionally, a shorter duration of GPI infusion has been shown to be safe with adequate oral antiplatelet loading, but clinical outcome data are limited to eptifibatide. This single-center, retrospective cohort study analyzed in-hospital outcomes for patients who received adjunctive GPI therapy for PCI before and after an institution-wide switch to high-dose bolus tirofiban with shortened infusion from short-duration eptifibatide. The primary end point was a composite in-hospital outcome of major and minor bleeding and cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, ischemic stroke, and target vessel revascularization). Secondary end points included bleeding and cardiovascular event types. A total of 357 and 446 patients received eptifibatide and tirofiban, respectively, from February 1, 2014 through September 30, 2017. Thirty five eptifibatide and 46 tirofiban patients experienced an in-hospital composite event (9.8% vs 10.3%, p = 0.81). There was no difference found between in-hospital bleeding (6.4% vs 5.4%, p = 0.52) or cardiovascular events (5.6% vs 6.5%, p = 0.60) with the use of eptifibatide or tirofiban, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that patients with transradial access or an indication of unstable angina were less likely to experience an in-hospital composite event (OR 0.30 and 0.19, respectively, p <0.001 for both). In conclusion, the use of high-dose bolus tirofiban with shortened infusion versus short-duration eptifibatide was not associated with an increase of in-hospital bleeding or cardiovascular events.