PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 16, 2010Circulation140 citationsOpen Access

Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Administration of Abciximab in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Thrombus Aspiration

View Full Paper
YGYoulan L. GuMKMarthe A. KampingaWWWouter G. Wieringa

Key Points

  • This research aims to compare the effects of intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in myocardial infarction patients.
  • Total of 534 myocardial infarction patients randomized to receive either intracoronary or intravenous abciximab (0.25 mg/kg).

Structured PICO

Does intracoronary administration of abciximab improve myocardial reperfusion compared to intravenous administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with thrombus aspiration?

P
Population
534 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration within 12 hours of symptom onset.
I
Intervention
Intracoronary bolus of abciximab (0.25 mg/kg) added to pretreatment with aspirin, heparin, and clopidogrel.
C
Comparator
Intravenous bolus of abciximab (0.25 mg/kg) added to pretreatment with aspirin, heparin, and clopidogrel.
O
Outcome
Incidence of restored myocardial reperfusion, defined as complete ST-segment resolution.surrogate

Intracoronary administration of abciximab during primary PCI for STEMI does not improve ST-segment resolution compared to intravenous administration, but it is associated with improved myocardial blush grade and smaller enzymatic infarct size.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: administration of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab is an effective adjunctive treatment strategy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Although small-scale studies have suggested beneficial effects of intracoronary over intravenous administration of abciximab, this has not been investigated in a medium-scale randomized clinical trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: a total of 534 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration within 12 hours of symptom onset were randomized to either an intracoronary or an intravenous bolus of abciximab (0.25 mg/kg). Patients were pretreated with aspirin, heparin, and clopidogrel. The primary end point was the incidence of restored myocardial reperfusion, defined as complete ST-segment resolution. Secondary end points included myocardial reperfusion as assessed by myocardial blush grade, enzymatic infarct size, and major adverse cardiac events at 30 days. The incidence of complete ST-segment resolution was similar in the intracoronary and intravenous groups (64% versus 62%; P=0.562). However, the incidence of myocardial blush grade 2/3 was higher in the intracoronary group than in the intravenous group (76% versus 67%; P=0.022). Furthermore, enzymatic infarct size was smaller in the intracoronary than in the intravenous group (P=0.008). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events was similar in both groups (5.5% versus 6.1%; P=0.786). CONCLUSIONS: in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration, intracoronary administration of abciximab compared with intravenous administration does not improve myocardial reperfusion as assessed by ST-segment resolution. However, intracoronary administration is associated with improved myocardial reperfusion as assessed by myocardial blush grade and a smaller enzymatic infarct size.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Gu et al. (2010) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a10260c5725bbd5cc6093cdhttps://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.110.002741
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper