Actual Role of Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Receptor Inhibitors as Adjunctive Pharmacological Therapy to Primary Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction: In the Light of Recent Randomized Trials and Observational Studies with Bivalirudin

Safety and efficacy of intravenous Tirofiban infusion after mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: a retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of intravenous Tirofiban infusion after mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent mechanical thrombectomy were included. The patients were categorized into two groups according to whether they received intravenous Tirofiban infusion after mechanical thrombectomy. Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and all-cause mortality were studied as safety outcomes; recanalization of target vessel evaluated by thrombolysis in cerebral infarct (TICI) scale, and neurological improvement evaluated by Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and modified Rankin scale (mRS) were studied as efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy were enrolled, among which 8 (25.81%) received a standard dose of intravenous Tirofiban infusion after mechanical thrombectomy. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (all P>0.05). None (0.00%) of the patients suffered ICH in the Tirofiban group, while 3 (13.04%) suffered ICH in the control group (P=0.550); similar all-cause mortality rates were found in both groups (25.00% versus 17.39%, P=0.634). In the Tirofiban group, all patients achieved successful recanalization defined by TICI groups (25.00% versus 17.39%, P=0.634). In the und in both groups (25.00% versus 17.39%, P=0.634). In th4). In thle, and neurological improvement evaluated so, 'et al' is notned by 3-month mRS≤2, which were not statistically significant when compared to the control group (all P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous Tirofiban infusion after mechanical thrombectomy is safe and effective in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Carotid Intima-Media Thickness as a Cardiovascular Risk Factor and Imaging Pathway of Atherosclerosis

Assessment of carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) has emerged as a simple and noninvasive technique for measuring atherosclerotic burden. Although serum biomarkers have been linked to the risk of developing atherosclerosis, carotid IMT has the theoretical advantage of directly visualizing a final consequence of the disease itself, namely atherosclerosis in the vessel wall. The current widespread application of carotid IMT measurements has been based on the validity, standardization, and reproducibility of the measurement and the evidence that an increased carotid IMT can be regarded as an attractive biomarker of atherosclerosis and of increased cardiovascular risk, potentially useful as a therapeutic target in those at increased cardiovascular risk. The utilization of carotid IMT measurements as a surrogate end point in clinical trials evaluating a specific drug intervention may result in considerably smaller efforts and costs than when using a hard end point such as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death. In addition, the use of carotid IMT measurement as a screening tool in clinical practice in association with traditional risk factors may improve risk classification and decisions regarding therapeutic interventions. However, although carotid IMT may be correlated with clinical outcomes, changes in surrogate end points over time that result from a particular therapy may not necessarily be predictive of future cardiovascular events. Therefore, it is necessary to perform more clinical studies to clearly define the relationship between the modifications in carotid IMT and the changes in cardiovascular events. In an era of economic burden, when there is a clear combination of limited resources with high expense of innovation in drug development, carotid IMT represents a reasonable, worthwhile surrogate trial end point with a history of nearly 30 years of technical progress and clinical research. Current data strongly suggest that carotid IMT will continue to successfully be used as a valuable tool in clinical atherosclerosis research.

Heparin Versus Bivalirudin in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Unfractionated Heparin Monotherapy Elevated to Primary Treatment in Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Bivalirudin, a direct thrombin inhibitor, was developed as an antithrombin agent for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with the hypothesis that it would reduce bleeding complications without compromising the rate of ischemic events compared to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Although the cumulative evidence makes a strong argument for the use of bivalirudin rather than heparin plus systematic GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors for the great majority of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing PCI, the benefit observed with bivalirudin was achieved because of the major bleeding complications with the use of heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors. When bivalirudin was compared with unfractionated heparin alone there was no benefit in ischemic complications with a decrease in major bleeding. However, in a recent large randomized controlled trial comparing bivalirudin with unfractionated heparin alone in AMI patients undergoing primary PCI, bivalirudin did not reduce bleeding complications and was associated with higher rates of stent thrombosis, myocardial reinfarction, and repeat revascularization compared with heparin. Moreover, a very recent meta-analysis shed more insights on the utilization of bivalirudin versus heparin regimens during PCI. Findings from this meta-analysis suggest that routine use of bivalirudin offers little advantage over heparin among PCI patients. In a detailed analysis of some randomized trials and observational studies with bivalirudin in AMI patients done by myself and published almost five years ago in this journal, I rendered some reflections on the future widespread use of bivalirudin. “In the setting of PCI in AMI patients, and in the absence of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, bivalirudin did not offer any beneficial effect in the incidence of the composite end points when compared with heparin alone. For now, in real world practice, one would probably choose a well known cheaper drug that has already passed the test of time, heparin. There may be reinforcement in the sole utilization of heparin confining GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and other intravenous antithrombotics to bailout therapy for periprocedural PCI complications in AMI patients”. Therefore, instead of being the beginning of a new era with bivalirudin, it sure is a welcome back to an old friend, heparin. Indeed, after more than two decades, it is always good to welcome back an old friend, unfractionated heparin, as monotherapy and preferred anticoagulant regimen for contemporary PCI in AMI patients.

Heparin Versus Bivalirudin in Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Welcome Back to an Old Friend Unfractionated Heparin

The results of randomized trials and observational studies make a strong argument for the use of bivalirudin rather than heparin plus systematic glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors for the great majority of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). However, there is no doubt that the benefit observed with bivalirudin was achieved because of the major bleeding complications with heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Therefore, if we diminish bleeding complications by eliminating the systematic utilization of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, there would be a lesser benefit with the use of bivalirudin. When this latter drug was compared with unfractionated heparin alone there was no benefit in ischemic complications but a decrease in major bleeding complications with bivalirudin. However, a very recent meta-analysis shed more insights on the utilization of bivalirudin versus heparin regimens during PCI. Findings from this meta-analysis suggest that routine use of bivalirudin offers little advantage over heparin among PCI patients. In a detailed analysis of some randomized trials and observational studies with bivalirudin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients done by myself and published almost 4 years ago in this journal, I rendered some reflections on the future widespread use of bivalirudin. "In the setting of PCI and in the absence of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, bivalirudin did not offer any beneficial effect in the incidence of the composite end points when compared with heparin. For now, in real world practice, one would probably choose a well-known cheaper drug that has already passed the test of time, heparin. There may be reinforcement in the sole utilization of heparin confining GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and other intravenous antithrombotics to bailout therapy for periprocedural PCI complications in acute coronary syndrome patients." Therefore, is it the beginning of a new era with bivalirudin or is it a welcome back to an old friend, heparin? Indeed, after more than two decades, it is always good to welcome back an old friend, unfractionated heparin.

Pharmaco-mechanic antithrombotic strategies to reperfusion of the infarct-related artery in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarctions

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the best treatment of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). When managing a STEMI patient, our approach must be rapid and aggresive in order to interrupt the pathological process of thrombus formation and stabilization. The therapy must be initiated prior to angiography (pretreatment), continued during the procedure (periprocedural), recovery phase (in-hospital), and follow-up. The treatment strategies resulting in thrombus dissolution/extraction have focused on optimization of both pharmacological and interventional therapies. At present, there is no optimal evidence-based approach to all patients with STEMI, and the treatment of these patients needs to be modified with respect to the risk profile, availability of medical resources, and our experience. In this review, we summarize current pharmacological and interventional strategies used in the setting of STEMI and discuss potential benefits of novel dosing regimens and combinations of drugs and techniques.