Intracoronary administration of tirofiban during percutaneous coronary intervention facilitates patients with acute coronary syndrome

We assessed the efficacy and safety of tirofiban intracoronary versus intravenous administration during percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome. The databases of PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang Database were retrieved. A total of 437 articles were found, according to inclusive and exclusive criteria, 13 of which were finally included. Compared with subjects with intravenous administration, those with intracoronary administration were more likely to reach thrombolysis in myocardial infarction trial grade 3 flow (relative risk = 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.11–1.22), improve left ventricular ejection fraction (Standardized mean difference = 0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.20–1.11). Intracoronary administration resulted in a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at 30-day follow-up (relative risk = 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.34–0.65). However, incidence of bleeding complications was not statistically significant between two groups (relative risk = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.55–1.04). Intracoronary administration of tirofiban can be more effective in increasing coronary blood flow and microvascular perfusion, more effective in improving postoperative myocardial reperfusion, more significantly in reducing the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events at 30-day’s follow-up and improving the prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention without increasing the risk of bleeding.

Intracoronary high-dose bolus tirofiban administration during complex coronary interventions: A United States-based case series

The GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) rapidly provide therapeutic levels of platelet aggregation inhibition and serve as adjunct pharmacotherapy to oral P2Y12 inhibitors that exhibit a significant delay in onset of action for patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). Intracoronary (IC) administration of the high dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban has not been extensively studied. Compared to intravenous delivery, IC administration can lead to higher local drug concentration and, therefore, provide instantaneous disruption of platelet aggregation in the culprit vessel. This report describes the successful resolution of thrombus using IC HDB tirofiban in 7 high-risk coronary interventions with complications such as recurrent thrombosis and cardiogenic shock in ACS patients. This report represents the first case series of IC HDB tirofiban performed in North America and suggests that IC HDB tirofiban may represent an effective and safe strategy to achieve rapid thrombus resolution in ACS patients.

Clinical significance of no-reflow in different stages of primary angioplasty among patients with acute myocardial infarctions

Background:

The coronary no-reflow (NR) phenomenon, which is associated with poor clinical outcomes, is usually referred to as a post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) state. NR can occur in different stages of the PCI procedure, not only including the post-stenting stage, but from balloon pre-dilation to pre-stenting. The clinical significance of NR in the different stages of the PCI procedure is unclear. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the clinical and angiographic characteristics, the prognosis for NR patients in the aforementioned two stages and to determine the predictors of NR in the early stage.

Methods:

Between January 2009 and December 2013, a total of 420 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) underwent primary PCI. Sixty-three patients (15%) with NR constituted the study population. The patients were divided into an early NR group and a subsequent NR group. The clinical and angiographic findings were compared between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the predictors for early NR. The long-term clinical outcomes after PCI were analyzed.

Results:

Regarding the baseline characteristics, we identified that the early NR group had statistically significant effects on the higher percentage of diabetes mellitus (42.9% vs. 20%), lower admission systolic blood pressure (SBP) (102.2±8.3 mmHg vs. 110.5±7.6 mmHg), higher percentage of Killip classification III (71.4% vs. 45.7%,) and longer reperfusion time (7.1±2.3 h vs. 5.88±2.2 h) compared to the subsequent NR group. There were significant differences between the two groups with respect to the percentage of initial thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow 0/1 (64.3% vs. 37.1%), target lesion length (31.4±13.6 mm vs. 20.5±17.3 mm) and thrombus score ⩾4 (67.9% vs. 42.9%; p<0.05 for all). Multiple stepwise logistic regression analysis indicated that an admission SBP <100 mmHg (OR=4.580; 95% CI=1.385–15.150; p=0.0130), reperfusion time ⩾6 h (OR=4.978; 95% CI=1.468–16.882; p=0.010) and a thrombus score ⩾4 (OR=2.708; 95% CI=0.833–8.799; p=0.008) were the independent determinants of the early NR. During a 1-year follow-up, the all-cause mortality and overall major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in the early NR group occurred significantly more often than in the subsequent NR group (28.6% vs. 5.7% and 35.7% vs. 14.3%, respectively, p <0.05). The early NR group had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (42.5±4.7 vs. 47.8±3.5, p <0.001) and a larger left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (56.0±4.0 vs. 51.5 ±4.7, p=0.001) at the end of the follow-up.

Conclusion:

Early NR patients during primary PCI have more severe baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, as well as a poorer long-term prognosis.

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.

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.

Acute Effects of Intracoronary Tirofiban on No-Reflow Phenomena in Patients With ST-Segment Elevated Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

We evaluated the acute effect of intracoronary administration of tirofiban on no-reflow phenomenon in patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Consecutive patients (n = 162) were randomized into 2 groups based on whether intracoronary tirofiban was administered. After the administration of intracoronary tirofiban, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade significantly increased ( P < .001) and successful reperfusion was achieved in 26 (32%) patients. In the placebo group, however, after the administration of intracoronary placebo the TIMI flow grade did not change ( P = .070), and successful reperfusion was achieved only in 8 (10%) patients. In-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were significantly lower in the tirofiban group (36% vs 19%, P = .013). Intracoronary administration of tirofiban significantly improves TIMI flow grade and is associated with a lower in-hospital rate of MACE.

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.

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 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 bolus-only compared with intravenous bolus plus infusion of tirofiban application in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this pilot study was to compare intracoronary bolus-only with standard intravenous bolus plus maintenance infusion of tirofiban with respect to improvement in myocardial reperfusion after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI).

BACKGROUND

Changes in clinical practice may obviate the need for a maintenance infusion of small molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in current practice.

METHODS

Forty-nine patients undergoing p-PCI were randomized to either intracoronary bolus-only (n = 25) or intravenous bolus plus infusion (n = 24) of tirofiban. The primary end point was coronary hemodynamic indices of microvascular perfusion measured 4-5 days after p-PCI. The secondary end points were ST segment resolution at 90 min, the corrected TIMI frame count and myocardial blush grade. At 6 months, echocardiography and technetium-99m single-photon-emission computed tomography were performed.

RESULTS

Microvascular perfusion did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups: index of microvascular resistance (27 ± 13 vs. 35 ± 15 U, P = 0.08) and coronary flow reserve (2.2 ± 0.7 vs. 1.9 ± 0.6, P = 0.25). The corrected TIMI frame counts assessed in the first (P = 0.13) and the second (P = 0.09) catheterization or the myocardial blush grades evaluated immediately (P = 0.23) and 4-5 days after MI (P = 1.00) were not significantly different between the two groups. At 6 months, there was no difference between the two groups in infarct size, left ventricular volumes, or ejection fraction.

CONCLUSIONS

The standard intravenous bolus plus maintenance infusion of tirofiban in p-PCI is not superior to intracoronary bolus-only administration with respect to microvascular perfusion. Further, adequately powered randomized trials are warranted to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with this strategy.

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.

Acute stent thrombosis during percutaneous coronary intervention. Treatment with tirofiban

Although rarely reported, acute instent thrombosis can be life threatening, especially in cases where there are no ST segment changes. For this reason, careful history taking, follow-up, and prompt coronary angiography may be lifesaving. Herein, a case of acute stent thrombosis with no ST segment changes on electrocardiogram that was resolved with intracoronary tirofiban is presented.

The causes and outcomes of inadequate implementation of existing guidelines for antiplatelet treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome: the experience from Taiwan Acute Coronary Syndrome Descriptive Registry (T-ACCORD Registry)

BACKGROUND

Benefits of antiplatelet agents in preventing future cardiovascular events have been well established. However, the prescription pattern of antiplatelet usage in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is rarely investigated. Hence, Taiwan ACute CORonary Syndrome Descriptive Registry (T-ACCORD Registry) aimed to evaluate medical practices in Taiwan in managing ACS patients.

HYPOTHESIS

The guidelines of antiplatelet treatment is not properly implanted in the management of ACS patients.

METHODS

This prospective observational study was performed between April 2004 and December 2006 in 27 hospitals in Taiwan. A total of 1331 patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) discharged from hospitals was analyzed.

RESULTS

The patients with older age, lower hemoglobin levels, or previous cardiovascular ischemic diseases were less likely to receive aspirin at discharge, whereas patients with NSTEMI were less likely to receive clopidogrel at discharge. The prescription of dual antiplatelet agents declined rapidly from 61.8% at discharge to 12.6% at 12 months. The most common reason for clopidogrel discontinuation was recorded as physician's judgment. Dual antiplatelet treatment for 9 months or longer was associated with lower 1-year mortality. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was the only factor leading to dual antiplatelet therapy for at least 9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our registry showed that underlying medical conditions may affect antiplatelet prescriptions at discharge. During the first year following an ACS episode, the prescription rate of dual antiplatelet therapy declined over time, mainly due to physician's judgment leading to the discontinuation of clopidogrel. Adherence to dual antiplatelet treatment was associated with lower total mortality at 1 year.

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.