Key result
Switching from abciximab to eptifibatide during PCI yields similar major event rates at 30 months.
Why the study?
The long-term effects of switching from abciximab to eptifibatide as a GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor during PCI were not established.
Does eptifibatide compared to abciximab prevent the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new coronary revascularization in patients undergoing PCI?
Cohort (n=1,038)
Yes
Does eptifibatide compared to abciximab prevent the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new coronary revascularization in patients undergoing PCI?
A planned institutional switch from abciximab to eptifibatide during PCI did not negatively impact long-term clinical outcomes at 30 months.
May support eptifibatide switch without outcome detriment; leaves open need for randomized confirmation in PCI.
BACKGROUND: The usage of platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors improves the outcome during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects after a planned switch from abciximab to eptifibatide during PCI. HYPOTHESIS: A switch from the general use of abciximab to eptifibatide as a GP IIb/IIIa in connection with PCI would not have any negative effects on long-term clinical outcomes. METHODS: To reduce costs, a general switch from abciximab to eptifibatide was instituted in 2004 in 2 university hospitals in Sweden. All patients treated 6 months before and 6 months after the switch were followed for 30 months. During the study period, 1038 patients underwent PCI and received a GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor, 481 (46%) before the switch (Group A) and 557 (54%) after the switch (Group B). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new coronary revascularization (percutaneous or surgical); secondary endpoints were the individual components of this composite. A separate analysis was performed on patients treated for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction/unstable angina, and diabetes, respectively. Data were collected from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups in the primary endpoint (29.7% in Group A vs 29.3% in Group B; P = 0.48) or in any of the secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: A switch from the general usage of abciximab to eptifibatide as a GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor in connection with PCI did not seem to have any negative effects on long-term clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koutouzis et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1,038). Eptifibatide vs. Abciximab was evaluated on composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new coronary revascularization (percutaneous or surgical) (p=0.48). A hospital-wide switch from abciximab to eptifibatide during PCI resulted in similar rates of death, MI, stroke, or revascularization at 30 months (29.3% vs 29.7%; P=0.48).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: