Key result
Upstream high-bolus-dose tirofiban did not significantly improve TIMI frame count compared to selective bailout administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI (12.2 vs 14.4, P=0.08).
Why the study?
No-reflow following PPCI is challenging to treat, prompting evaluation of the efficacy and safety of upstream high-bolus-dose tirofiban versus selective bailout administration in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI on top of DAPT including ticagrelor.
Does upstream high-bolus-dose tirofiban improve angiographic, echocardiographic, or clinical outcomes compared to selective bailout administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI?
RCT (n=150)
Single-blind
No
Does upstream high-bolus-dose tirofiban improve angiographic, echocardiographic, or clinical outcomes compared to selective bailout administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 12.2% vs 14.4%
p-value: p=0.08
Upstream high-bolus-dose tirofiban does not significantly improve angiographic outcomes, left ventricular remodeling, or clinical outcomes compared to selective bailout administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.
Supports selective bailout tirofiban in STEMI primary PCI; confirms no angiographic or clinical advantage to routine upstream administration.
BACKGROUND: No-reflow following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is challenging to treat. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of upstream high-bolus-dose tirofiban administration in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) cases undergoing PPCI on top of dual antiplatelet therapy, including ticagrelor, in comparison to selective bailout administration. METHODS: This hospital-based, randomized, single-blinded prospective interventional study was conducted on 150 patients at Assiut University Heart Hospital. Patients with STEMI within 12 h after symptom onset who underwent PPCI were randomized to an upstream group ( n = 75) and a selective bailout group ( n = 75) based on the timing of the tirofiban bolus administration (25 µg/kg intravenously over 5 min). RESULTS: The bailout group's thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame count was higher than the upstream group's, despite comparable TIMI flow and myocardial blush grade between the two groups, but only approached statistical significance [14.4 (4-36) vs 12.2 (5-55), P = 0.08]. The enzymatic infarct size tended to be lower in the upstream group. All echocardiographic findings were comparable between the two studied groups, with no significant difference ( P > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared to selective bailout administration, upstream high bolus dose of tirofiban in STEMI patients undergoing primary coronary intervention did not significantly affect angiographic outcomes, left ventricular remodeling, or function, despite smaller infarction size.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abouelnour et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=150). Upstream high-bolus-dose tirofiban vs. Selective bailout administration was evaluated on TIMI frame count (p=0.08). Upstream high-bolus-dose tirofiban did not significantly improve TIMI frame count compared to selective bailout administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI (12.2 vs 14.4, P=0.08).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: