Key result
Current evidence from small, non-randomized, or retrospective studies is insufficient to determine whether intracoronary administration of abciximab is superior to intravenous administration during percutaneous coronary intervention.
Why the study?
Does intracoronary administration of abciximab improve outcomes compared to intravenous administration in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Does intracoronary administration of abciximab improve outcomes compared to intravenous administration in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Current evidence is insufficient to determine whether intracoronary abciximab is superior to intravenous administration during PCI, necessitating large randomized trials.
Insufficient evidence precludes favoring intracoronary over intravenous abciximab in ACS PCI; leaves open superiority and requires large RCTs.
The use of the glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist Abciximab has over the years become an important part of the anticoagulant regimen in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Abciximab is a potent inhibitor of platelet aggregation and thrombus formation, but other mechanisms, such as suppression of the inflammatory pathways, have also been proposed to contribute to the benefits of Abciximab.The optimal route of administration, i.e. intravenous versus intracoronary, of the first dose has been questioned, but only tested in small, non-randomised and retrospective studies or studies with short follow-up. No definite conclusion can be made based on these studies.In this review we present the current knowledge published about the intracoronary administration of Abciximab including the mechanisms behind the potential beneficial effects, and the safety. The emphasis will be on clinical trials rather than on studies on the pharmacological mechanisms, as the latter have been reviewed thoroughly elsewhere.Our conclusion from this present review is that randomized trials of intracoronary versus intravenous bolus of Abciximab are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iversen et al. (2008) conducted a review in Acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Intracoronary Abciximab vs. Intravenous Abciximab was evaluated. Current evidence from small, non-randomized, or retrospective studies is insufficient to determine whether intracoronary administration of abciximab is superior to intravenous administration during percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: