Why the study?
Evidence supporting GPIs predated trials establishing P2Y12 inhibitors, routine early invasive therapy, and thrombectomy devices in ACS patients, leaving contemporary use trends and associated outcomes unclear.
Do Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors reduce 30-day MACE in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Do Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors reduce 30-day MACE in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
In contemporary practice, the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during PCI for ACS does not improve 30-day MACE but significantly increases the risk of major bleeding.
Supports selective GPI use by lesion complexity in ACS; leaves open need for contemporary outcome trials.
Background: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) are a treatment option in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). Evidence supporting the use of GPIs predates trials establishing the benefits of P2Y12 inhibitors, routine early invasive therapy, and thrombectomy devices in patients with ACS. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine trends in GPI use and their associated outcomes in contemporary practice. Methods: We assessed GPI use in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry (2005-2013). The primary endpoint was the 30-day incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The safety endpoint was in-hospital major bleeding. Results: GPIs were used in 40.5% of 12 357 patients with ACS undergoing PCI. GPI use decreased over the study period ( P for trend <0.0001). Patients were more likely to receive GPIs if they were younger, presented with a ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), had more complex (B2/C-type) lesions, and when thrombectomy devices were used (all P < 0.0001). MACE were higher in patients receiving GPI (4.9% vs 4.1%, P = 0.03). Propensity score matching revealed no difference in 30-day mortality and 30-day MACE (odds ratio [OR] = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.99-1.004 and OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.99-1.02, respectively). GPI use was associated with more bleeding complications (3.6% vs 1.8%, P < 0.0001). Conclusion and Relevance: GPI use in ACS patients undergoing PCI has declined, and use appears to be dictated by ACS type and lesion complexity, as opposed to high-risk comorbidities. GPI use was associated with a doubling in bleeding complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gellatly et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: