Why the study?
Intracoronary eptifibatide is safe and more effective than intravenous administration in AMI, but its efficacy compared to localized intralesional injection on myocardial perfusion was unestablished.
Does intralesional injection of eptifibatide improve myocardial perfusion outcomes compared to intracoronary injection in patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Does intralesional injection of eptifibatide improve myocardial perfusion outcomes compared to intracoronary injection in patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Intralesional and intracoronary administration of eptifibatide during primary PCI in STEMI patients resulted in similar myocardial perfusion outcomes and safety profiles.
No perfusion benefit seen with intralesional versus intracoronary eptifibatide in STEMI PCI; supports similar efficacy of either route.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have proved that intracoronary injection of eptifibatide is safe and more effective in infarct size reduction and clinical outcomes than intravenously injection in the patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study aimed to compare the effect of localized and intracoronary injection of eptifibatide on myocardial perfusion improvement and its outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial study of 60 patients presented with thrombotic AMI. The patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and were randomly divided into two equal number groups. The first group received two bolus doses of 180 μg/kg eptifibatide through guiding catheter. The second group received the same bolus doses through export aspiration catheter into the coronary lesion directly. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow, myocardial blush grade (MBG), and no-reflow phenomenon were primary end points. Secondary end points were pre- and postprocedure cardiac arrhythmia, in-hospital mortality, adverse effects, reinfection, pre-discharge ventricular systolic function, and re-hospitalization and mortality after 6 month of follow up. RESULTS: The mean ages of group I and group II were 58.3 ± 1.8 and 57.0 ±2.0 years, respectively, and most of patient were men (90% in group I and 80% in group II). Postprocedural TIMI flow grade 3 was achieved in 60.0% and 76.7% of the intracoronary and intralesional groups, respectively (P = 0.307). Postprocedural MBG grade 3 was achieved in 53.3% and 70.0% in intracoronary and intralesional groups, respectively (P = 0.479). There was no significant difference between the groups in no-reflow assessment. Moreover, no significant difference was seen between the two groups in secondary end-point analysis. CONCLUSION: Both methods of intracoronary and intralesional eptifibatide administration during primary PCI in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were safe and similar in myocardial perfusion outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghazal et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: