Key result
High-dose tirofiban shows comparable efficacy and safety to standard abciximab in PCI.
Why the study?
Pharmacologic blockade of GP IIb/IIIa receptor reduces major cardiovascular events after PCI and ACS, but optimal dosing of tirofiban remains uncertain.
May support high-bolus tirofiban as abciximab alternative in PCI; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
The glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor is a platelet-specific adhesion receptor that mediates the formation of platelet aggregates. Pharmacologic blockade of the receptor is associated with a reduction in major cardiovascular adverse events after percutaneous coronary interventions and in the setting of acute coronary syndromes. Three intravenous GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors are available: abciximab, tirofiban and eptifibatide. Tirofiban is a small, synthetic non-peptide, competitive GP IIb/IIIa antagonist with high specificity and high affinity for the GP IIb/IIIa receptor. In a head-to-head comparison, tirofiban 10-microg/kg bolus followed by a 0.15-microg/kg/min infusion was found to be inferior to standard dose of abciximab in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Insufficient platelet inhibition with low-dose tirofiban may likely explain these results. Subsequently, a high-bolus dose of tirofiban (25 microg/kg bolus) followed by standard infusion was tested and evidence suggest that in this dosing tirofiban may be as effective as abciximab and have a comparable safety profile. Therefore, high-bolus dose tirofiban may be an appealing and cost-effective alternative to abciximab. However, further testing is warranted given the short follow up and limited statistical power of the available data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mukherjee et al. (2007) conducted a review in Acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary interventions. High-dose tirofiban vs. Abciximab was evaluated. High-bolus dose tirofiban (25 microg/kg) may be as effective as standard dose abciximab with a comparable safety profile in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: