Search

Abstract Background Intracoronary (IC) administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) has been studied as an adjunctive therapy to improve outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IC administration of GPIs compared with those of intravenous (IV) administration in patients with STEMI. Methods We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for relevant studies published before September 21, 2022. In total, 22 randomized controlled trials involving 7,699 patients were included. Results The proportions of patients achieving thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow, myocardial blush grade 2/3, and complete ST-segment resolution were significantly higher in the IC group than in the IV group. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37–0.80) and heart failure (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25–0.91) within 1 month were significantly lower in the IC group than in the IV group; however, after 6 months, no difference was observed in MACE risk. Additionally, the risks of death and bleeding did not differ between the two routes of administration. Conclusions When considering adjunctive GPI administration for patients with STEMI, the IC route may offer greater benefits than the IV route in terms of myocardial reperfusion and reduced occurrence of MACE and heart failure within 1 month. Nonetheless, when making decisions for IC administration of GPIs, the absence of a benefit for bleeding risk and difficulty accessing the administration route should be considered.

Background: Intracoronary (IC) administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) has been studied as an adjunctive therapy to improve outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IC administration of GPIs compared with those of intravenous (IV) administration in patients with STEMI. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for relevant studies published before September 21, 2022. In total, 22 randomized controlled trials involving 7,699 patients were included. Results: The proportions of patients achieving thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow, myocardial blush grade 2/3, and complete ST-segment resolution were significantly higher in the IC group than in the IV group. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37–0.80) and heart failure (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25–0.91) within 1 month were significantly lower in the IC group than in the IV group; however, after 6 months, no difference was observed in MACE risk. Additionally, the risks of death and bleeding did not differ between the two routes of administration. Conclusions: When considering adjunctive GPI administration for patients with STEMI, the IC route may offer greater benefits than the IV route in terms of myocardial reperfusion and reduced occurrence of MACE and heart failure within 1 month. Nonetheless, when making decisions for IC administration of GPIs, the absence of a benefit for bleeding risk and difficulty accessing the administration route should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite implementation of new interventional techniques and therapeutic advances, elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) continue to be susceptible to in-hospital bleeding compared with younger ones. Thus, we investigated the incidence of in-hospital bleeding events and associated risk factors in elderly (≥ 75°years) ACS patients. We also wanted to define the bleeding sites, characteristics, and associated mortality. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification type 2, 3, or 5 was used to define bleeding events. Overall, 539 patients were included in the study (mean age: 82.5 ± 4.8°years; 282 (52.3%) females). Of these patients, 69 (12.8%) developed in-hospital bleeding. Factors that were independently related with in-hospital bleeding were age (odds ratio (OR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.011.14, P =.01), acute kidney injury (OR: 3.66; 95% CI: 2.016.69; P <.01), tirofiban (OR: 4.43; 95% CI: 1.7810.99; P <.01), and ticagrelor (OR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.013.73; P =.04) administration. The urinary tract was the most frequent bleeding site, followed by femoral arteries. In conclusion, ticagrelor and tirofiban should be used with caution in elderly ACS patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organization of platelet-rich thrombus at the site of plaque disruption may contribute to rapid progression of atherosclerosis. This study was conducted to investigate if potent platelet inhibition therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) mitigates plaque progression. Patients enrolled in the EROSION study who presented with ACS caused by plaque erosion and underwent serial imaging of the culprit lesion by optical coherence tomography at baseline, 1 month, and 1 year were included. Among 49 patients, 32 (65.3%) patients were treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) in addition to aspirin and ticagrelor. The increase in area stenosis from baseline to 1-year follow-up was significantly smaller in patients treated with GPI, compared to those without GPI therapy (4.8% [− 1.6 to 10.9] vs. 9.6% [4.0 to 21.3], p = 0.031). The cohort was divided into 2 groups based on culprit lesion phenotype at 1 year: Group A, new layer formation at 1-year that was not present at baseline (n = 18); Group B, no new layer formation (n = 31). A new layer was less frequently found at 1 year in patients treated with GPI than in those without GPI (25.0% vs. 58.8%, p = 0.019). Group A, compared to Group B, was associated with a greater increase in area stenosis (19.0 ± 16.4% vs. 3.7 ± 7.1%; p < 0.001). Potent platelet inhibition with GPI in patients with ACS caused by plaque erosion was associated with lower incidence of new layer formation and less plaque progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progressive ischemic stroke (PIS) is a therapeutic challenge in clinical practice. The present retrospective study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of eptifibatide in the treatment of PIS. The present study enrolled patients with PIS admitted to Xiangtan Central Hospital (Xiangtan, China) between March 2020 and March 2021 with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) progression scores of ≥2 points during the initial 72 h. Patients were then divided into two groups according to their different anti-platelet treatment regimens. The control group was administered anti-platelet aggregation with aspirin 100 mg/day, or aspirin 100 mg/day in combination with clopidogrel 75 mg/day, whilst eptifibatide was administered in the eptifibatide group in addition to the treatment regimen used in the control group. Changes in NIHSS scores at the time of progression and 7 days after treatment (∆NIHSS) were used to assess early neurological recovery, and there were no significant differences in ∆NIHSS and adverse reactions between the groups (P>0.05). Subgroup analysis was subsequently performed according to the type of blood vessel that was involved [large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) or small artery occlusion (SAO)]. For the SAO subgroup, the ∆NIHSS in the eptifibatide group was significantly superior to that of the control group (P=0.008), while for the LAA subgroup, there were no significant differences in ∆NIHSS between groups (P=0.334). The present retrospective study found that patients with PIS tolerated eptifibatide treatment well. Eptifibatide exerted different effects on patients with acute PIS involving different types of blood vessels compared with oral antiplatelet drugs. In addition, application of eptifibatide may lead to faster and earlier recovery in patients with SAO, but not in those with LAA. Low-dose eptifibatide is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with PIS caused by SAO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progressive ischemic stroke (PIS) is a therapeutic challenge in clinical practice. The present retrospective study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of eptifibatide in the treatment of PIS. The present study enrolled patients with PIS admitted to Xiangtan Central Hospital (Xiangtan, China) between March 2020 and March 2021 with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) progression scores of ≥2 points during the initial 72 h. Patients were then divided into two groups according to their different anti-platelet treatment regimens. The control group was administered anti-platelet aggregation with aspirin 100 mg/day, or aspirin 100 mg/day in combination with clopidogrel 75 mg/day, whilst eptifibatide was administered in the eptifibatide group in addition to the treatment regimen used in the control group. Changes in NIHSS scores at the time of progression and 7 days after treatment (∆NIHSS) were used to assess early neurological recovery, and there were no significant differences in ∆NIHSS and adverse reactions between the groups (P>0.05). Subgroup analysis was subsequently performed according to the type of blood vessel that was involved [large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) or small artery occlusion (SAO)]. For the SAO subgroup, the ∆NIHSS in the eptifibatide group was significantly superior to that of the control group (P=0.008), while for the LAA subgroup, there were no significant differences in ∆NIHSS between groups (P=0.334). The present retrospective study found that patients with PIS tolerated eptifibatide treatment well. Eptifibatide exerted different effects on patients with acute PIS involving different types of blood vessels compared with oral antiplatelet drugs. In addition, application of eptifibatide may lead to faster and earlier recovery in patients with SAO, but not in those with LAA. Low-dose eptifibatide is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with PIS caused by SAO., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright: © Luo et al.)

Background: In patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT), adjunctive antithrombotic might improve angiographic reperfusion, reduce the risk of distal emboli and reocclusion but possibly expose patients to a higher intracranial hemorrhage risk. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of combined MT plus eptifibatide for acute ischemic stroke., Methods: This was a propensity-matched analysis of data from 2 prospective trials in Chinese populations: the ANGEL-ACT trial (Endovascular Treatment Key Technique and Emergency Workflow Improvement of Acute Ischemic Stroke) in 111 hospitals between November 2017 and March 2019, and the EPOCH trial (Eptifibatide in Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke) in 15 hospitals between April 2019 and March 2020. The primary efficacy outcome was good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) at 3 months. Secondary efficacy outcomes included the distribution of 3-month modified Rankin Scale scores and poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 5-6) and successful recanalization. The safety outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and 3-month mortality. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to account for within-hospital clustering in adjusted analyses., Results: Eighty-one combination arm EPOCH subjects were matched with 81 ANGEL-ACT noneptifibatide patients. Compared with the no eptifibatide group, the eptifibatide group had significantly higher rates of successful recanalization (91.3% versus 81.5%; P =0.043) and 3-month good outcomes (53.1% versus 33.3%; P =0.016). No significant difference was found in the remaining outcome measures between the 2 groups. All outcome measures of propensity score matching were consistent with mixed-effects logistic regression models in the total population., Conclusions: This matched-control study demonstrated that MT combined with eptifibatide did not raise major safety concerns and showed a trend of better efficacy outcomes compared with MT alone. Overall, eptifibatide shows potential as a periprocedural adjunctive antithrombotic therapy when combined with MT. Further randomized controlled trials of MT plus eptifibatide should be prioritized., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03844594 (EPOCH), NCT03370939 (ANGEL-ACT).