PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 16, 2008Circulation303 citationsOpen Access

Intracoronary Compared With Intravenous Bolus Abciximab Application in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

View Full Paper
HTHölger ThieleKSKathrin SchindlerJFJosef Friedenberger

Structured PICO

Does intracoronary bolus abciximab reduce infarct size and microvascular obstruction compared to intravenous bolus abciximab in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention?

P
Population
154 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention
I
Intervention
Intracoronary bolus abciximab administration with subsequent 12-hour intravenous infusion
C
Comparator
Intravenous bolus abciximab administration with subsequent 12-hour intravenous infusion
O
Outcome
Infarct size and extent of microvascular obstruction as assessed by delayed enhancement magnetic resonancesurrogate

Intracoronary bolus administration of abciximab during primary PCI for STEMI significantly reduces infarct size and microvascular obstruction compared to standard intravenous administration.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Abciximab reduces major adverse cardiac events in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intracoronary abciximab bolus application results in high local drug concentrations and may be more effective than a standard intravenous bolus. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing primary PCI were randomized to either intracoronary (n=77) or intravenous (n=77) bolus abciximab administration with subsequent 12-hour intravenous infusion. The primary end point was infarct size and extent of microvascular obstruction as assessed by delayed enhancement magnetic resonance. Secondary end points were ST-segment resolution at 90 minutes, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow and perfusion grades after PCI, and the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events within 30 days. The median infarct size was 15.1% (interquartile range, 6.1% to 25.2%) in the intracoronary versus 23.4% (interquartile range, 13.6% to 33.2%) in the intravenous group (P=0.01). Similarly, the extent of microvascular obstruction was significantly smaller in intracoronary compared with intravenous abciximab patients (P=0.01). Myocardial perfusion measured as early ST-segment resolution was significantly improved in intracoronary patients with an absolute ST-segment resolution of 77.8% (interquartile range, 66.7% to 100.0%) versus 70.0% (interquartile range, 45.2% to 83.5%; P=0.006). The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow after PCI was not different between treatment groups (P=0.51), but there was a trend toward an improved perfusion grade (P=0.09). There also was a trend toward a lower major adverse cardiac event rate after intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab application (5.2% versus 15.6%; P=0.06; relative risk, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary bolus administration of abciximab in primary PCI is superior to standard intravenous treatment with respect to infarct size, extent of microvascular obstruction, and perfusion.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Thiele et al. (2008) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f14bb62811130d0cde22cehttps://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.747642
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper