Intracoronary Administration of Abciximab During Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Should This Be the Routine and Preferred Approach?

Efficacy and Safety of Intracoronary versus Intravenous Administration of Tirofiban during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is known as the most effective treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, without proper therapy and patient management, stent thrombosis after PCI may lead to another myocardial infarction. In addition to aspirin and clopidogrel, tirofiban is often used as an antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. To date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) tirofiban administration for ACS patients undergoing PCI compared with intravenous (IV) administration. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the clinical efficiency and safety of IC versus intravenous (IV) tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Medline for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IC versus IV administration of tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI. We evaluated the effects of tirofiban on thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow after PCI, TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3 (TMP grade 3), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization (TVR), death, reinfarction and adverse drug effects (specifically bleeding events).

Results

Seven trials involving 1,027 patients were included in this meta-analysis. IC administration of tirofiban significantly increased TIMI grade 3 flow (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.37; P = 0.04) and TMP grade 3 (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.09 to 6.49; P = 0.03, I² = 64%) while reducing MACE (OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.75; P = 0.002) compared with IV administration of tirofiban. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of TVR, death, reinfarction and the incidence of bleeding events between the two groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis supports the use of IC over IV administration of tirofiban in patients with ACS to improve TIMI flow, TMP flow and MACE. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of bleeding complications between the two groups.

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.

Prevention and treatment of microvascular obstruction-related myocardial injury and coronary no-reflow following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic approach

Microvascular obstruction (MVO) commonly occurs following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), may lead to myocardial injury, and is an independent predictor of adverse outcome. Severe MVO may manifest angiographically as reduced flow in the patent upstream epicardial arteries, a situation that is termed "no-reflow." Microvascular obstruction can be broadly categorized according to the duration of myocardial ischemia preceding PCI. In "interventional MVO" (e.g., elective PCI), obstruction typically involves myocardium that was not exposed to acute ischemia before PCI. Conversely "reperfusion MVO" (e.g., primary PCI for acute myocardial infarction) occurs within a myocardial territory that was ischemic before the coronary intervention. Interventional and reperfusion MVO have distinct pathophysiological mechanisms and may require individualized therapeutic approaches. Interventional MVO is triggered predominantly by downstream embolization of atherosclerotic material from the epicardial vessel wall into the distal microvasculature. Reperfusion MVO results from both distal embolization and ischemia-reperfusion injury within the subtended ischemic tissue. Management of MVO and no-reflow may be targeted at different levels: the epicardial artery, microvasculature, and tissue. The aim of the present report is to advocate a systematic approach to prevention and treatment of MVO in different clinical settings. Randomized clinical trials have studied strategies for prevention of MVO and no-reflow; however, the efficacy of measures for reversing MVO once no-reflow has been demonstrated angiographically is unclear. New approaches for prevention and treatment of MVO will require a better understanding of intracellular cardioprotective pathways such as the blockade of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore.

Intracoronary abciximab use in patients undergoing PCI at a community hospital: a single operator experience

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of intracoronary (IC) abciximab during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Adjunctive treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, especially abciximab, during PCI has been shown to improve clinical and procedural outcomes in numerous studies. However, significant bleeding complications exist with its use and this has limited its standard use. Interest has grown in local (IC) use with studies showing safety and long-term effectiveness, especially in patients with high thrombus loads.

METHODS

A retrospective review of records in a database of patients who had PCI by a single operator at the Easton Hospital.

RESULTS

611 patients received IC abciximab, and there were no complications in 610 (98.3%) patients; only 1 had an allergic reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

IC abciximab is safe and has a unique role in the catheterization lab and in patients at high risk of bleeding complications who would benefit from its limited use.