Key result
An intracoronary bolus of urokinase was not noninferior to tirofiban for complete ST-segment resolution at 90 minutes post-PCI in STEMI patients (adjusted difference -7.0%; 95% CI -15.7% to 1.8%).
Why the study?
Is an intracoronary bolus of urokinase noninferior to an intracoronary bolus of tirofiban for achieving complete ST-segment resolution in patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
RCT (n=490)
Is an intracoronary bolus of urokinase noninferior to an intracoronary bolus of tirofiban for achieving complete ST-segment resolution in patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Effect estimate: adjusted difference -7.0% (95% CI -15.7% to 1.8%)
Absolute Event Rate: 54.4% vs 60.6%
An intracoronary bolus of urokinase is not noninferior to intracoronary tirofiban for improving myocardial reperfusion (assessed by ST-segment resolution) during primary PCI for STEMI.
Intracoronary urokinase is not noninferior to tirofiban; does not support its use as an alternative for reperfusion in STEMI PCI.
BACKGROUND: No randomized trial has been performed to compare the efficacy of an intracoronary bolus of tirofiban versus urokinase during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We investigated whether the effects of adjunctive therapy with an intracoronary bolus of urokinase was noninferior to the effects of an intracoronary bolus of tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PCI. METHODS: A total of 490 patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary PCI were randomized to an intracoronary bolus of tirofiban (10 µg/kg; n = 247) or urokinase (250 kU/20 ml; n = 243). Serum levels of P-selectin, von Willebrand factor (vWF), CD40 ligand (CD40L), and serum amyloid A (SAA) in the coronary sinus were measured before and after intracoronary drug administration. The primary endpoint was the rate of complete ( ≥ 70%) ST-segment resolution (STR) at 90 minutes after intervention, and the noninferiority margin was set to 15%. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, complete STR was achieved in 54.4% of patients treated with an intracoronary bolus of urokinase and in 60.6% of those treated with an intracoronary bolus of tirofiban (adjusted difference: -7.0%; 95% confidence interval: -15.7% to 1.8%). The corrected TIMI frame count of the infarct-related artery was lower, left ventricular ejection fraction was higher, and the 6-month major adverse cardiac event-free survival tended to be better in the intracoronary tirofiban group. An intracoronary bolus of tirofiban resulted in lower levels of P-selectin, vWF, CD40L, and SAA in the coronary sinus compared with an intracoronary bolus of urokinase after primary PCI (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An intracoronary bolus of urokinase as an adjunct to primary PCI for acute STEMI is not equally effective to an intracoronary bolus of tirofiban with respect to improvement in myocardial reperfusion assessed by STR. This may be caused by less reduction in coronary circulatory platelet activation and inflammation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=490). Intracoronary bolus of urokinase vs. Intracoronary bolus of tirofiban (10 µg/kg) was evaluated on rate of complete (≥ 70%) ST-segment resolution (STR) at 90 minutes after intervention (adjusted difference -7.0%, 95% CI -15.7% to 1.8%). An intracoronary bolus of urokinase was not noninferior to tirofiban for complete ST-segment resolution at 90 minutes post-PCI in STEMI patients (adjusted difference -7.0%; 95% CI -15.7% to 1.8%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: