Early administration of small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors before primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: insights from randomized clinical trials

Treatment with tirofiban for acute coronary syndrome (ACS): a systematic review and network analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of tirofiban in comparison to usual care or other GPIIb/IIIa antagonists (eptifibatide and abciximab). Results were analysed by drug administration with planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or as medical management without planned PCI, and separately for STEMI or NSTE ACS patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials of tirofiban, abciximab, eptifibatide or usual care given to patients with acute coronary syndrome. Nine databases were searched up to March 2010. Pair-wise meta-analysis was used to combine all available direct comparisons; indirect comparisons and network analysis were performed when this was not possible. The primary outcome was MACE (major adverse cardiac event).

RESULTS

The search yielded 8, 119 records and 50 trials were included (total number of patients = 52,958). Compared to usual care, high and medium-dose tirofiban (25 and 10 µg/kg/min) administered with planned PCI reduced MACE at 30 days for patients with STEMI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45, 0.99; RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10, 0.80), but was not effective as a medical management. Medium-dose tirofiban (10 µg/kg/min) administered with planned PCI or low dose (0.4 µg/kg/min) as medical management reduced the risk of MACE for patients with NSTE ACS (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21, 0.75; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41, 0.83) in comparison to usual care, but at the expense of increased thrombocytopenia (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.31, 8.13). Evidence from RCTs and network analysis indicated tirofiban and abciximab were equally effective and safe. Comparing tirofiban and eptifibatide treatment by indirect and network analysis produced inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban was more effective than usual care for STEMI and NSTE ACS patients receiving planned PCI, and NSTE ACS patients receiving medical management. Tirofiban and abciximab were equally effective. Comparisons of tirofiban and eptifibatide were inconclusive.

Upstream vs deferred administration of small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recent data have demonstrated similar outcomes for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are treated with small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (smGPIs) compared with those treated with abciximab. In the present study, a meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of upstream vs deferred administration of smGPIs in STEMI patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 10 randomized clinical trials comparing upstream vs deferred administration of smGPIs in 2,724 patients were located in the electronic databases of the published literature. Preprocedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction Study (TIMI) grade 2 or 3 flow was present in 45.0% of the upstream group compared with 36.9% in the deferred group (odds ratio (OR) 1.40, P<0.001). However, no difference in post-procedural TIMI 3 flow (OR 0.87, P=0.25) was found between the groups. The 30-day mortality rate in the upstream group did not differ from that of the deferred group (OR 1.04, P=0.85). No significant difference was noted with respect to major bleeding complications (OR 1.25, P=0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

In STEMI patients scheduled for primary PCI, although early smGPIs treatment improved initial epicardial patency, no beneficial effect on post-procedural angiographic or 30-day clinical outcome was found. Thus, the current available data do not support the routine utilization of upstream smGPIs in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI.