How Safe is Eptifibatide during Urgent Carotid Artery Stenting?

Eptifibatide bridging therapy for staged carotid artery stenting and cardiac surgery: Safety and feasibility

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an effective strategy to reduce perioperative stroke in patients with severe carotid stenosis who require cardiothoracic surgery (CTS). Staging both procedures (CAS-CTS) during a single hospitalization presents conflicting demands for antiplatelet therapy and the optimal pharmacologic strategy between procedures is not established. The purpose of this study is to present our initial experience with a "bridging" protocol for staged CAS-CTS.

METHODS

A retrospective review of staged CAS-CTS procedures at a single referral center was performed. All patients had multivessel coronary and/or valvular disease and severe carotid stenosis (>70%). Patients not previously on aspirin were also started on aspirin prior to surgery, followed by eptifibatide during CAS (intraprocedural bolus followed by post-procedural infusion which was continued until the morning of surgery). Pre- and perioperative (30 days) neurologic morbidity and mortality was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

11 CAS procedures were performed in 10 patients using the protocol. The median duration of eptifibatide bridge therapy was 36 h (range 24-288 h). There was one minor bleeding complication (1/11, 9.1%) and no major bleeding complications during the bridging and post-operative period. There was one post-operative, non-neurologic death and zero perioperative ischemic strokes.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing staged CAS-CTS, Eptifibatide bridging therapy is a viable temporary antiplatelet strategy with a favorable safety profile. This strategy enables a flexible range of time-intervals between procedures.

Impact of Tirofiban on Serum Troponin Changes in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optional periprocedural antithrombotic management for carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still debated.

METHODS

We aimed to compare the procedural and 1-month outlook of patients undergoing CAS with tirofiban as parenteral antiplatelet therapy. We retrospectively compared patients receiving tirofiban during CAS versus those undergoing CAS without tirofiban, using propensity score matching. Ancillary antithrombotic therapy included in all patients aspirin, clopidogrel, and unfractioned heparin. The primary outcome was the change in serum troponin from baseline to postprocedural peak levels. A total of 30 patients undergoing CAS were included, 15 receiving tirofiban on top of heparin and dual oral antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 15 receiving only heparin and DAPT. Bail-out use of tirofiban was an exclusion criterion.

RESULTS

Baseline troponin was 3.00 (0.06; 5.20) ng/mL in the tirofiban group vs. 4.6 (0.02; 13.10) ng/mL in the no-tirofiban group (P = 0.229), and postprocedural peak 3.5 (0.06; 5.50) ng/mL vs. 6.30 (0.09; 28.40) ng/mL (P = 0.191). Peak-baseline difference in troponin was lower in the tirofiban group than in the no-tirofiban group: 0.3 (0.00; 1.7) ng/mL vs. 1.3 (0.01; 10.00) ng/mL (P = 0.044); the relative peak-baseline change in troponin was analogously different: 24.3% (0%; 44.7%) vs. 50% (21.3%; 80.0%) (P = 0.039). No case of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack occurred during in-hospital stay or at 1-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban during CAS might provide periprocedural myocardial protection and reduce myocardial injury as determined by serial troponin measurements.