Search

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]

Background: For patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the efficacy and safety of novel P2Y12 antagonists, including prasugrel or ticagrelor, has not been established relative to that of the clopidogrel-based triple-antiplatelet treatments (TAPTs; in combination with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor). The present meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of prasugrel- or ticagrelor-based TAPTs relative to that of clopidogrel TAPTs in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI.Methods: The databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane's Library were systematically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials concerning prasugrel or ticagrelor (test) relative to clopidogrel (control). Depending on heterogeneity, studies were pooled with a random effects or a fixed effects model. Outcomes of blood flow after PCI were evaluated, including TIMI (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction), bleeding events, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).Results: Seven studies comprising 11,874 patients conformed to the inclusion criteria. The pooled results with the fixed effects model indicated that after PCI patients in the prasugrel or ticagrelor groups were as likely as those treated with clopidogrel to achieve TIMI grade 3 flow or experience bleeding events. However, compared with the control, the test groups had significantly less risk of MACE (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94, P = 0.004), especially at the 1-year follow-up (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66-0.95, P = 0.01).Conclusions: A prasugrel- or ticagrelor-based TAPT may reduce the rate of MACEs, without increasing bleeding in STEMI patients undergoing PCI. However, due to the limited RCT studies and variations in study weight, results of this meta-analysis should be confirmed in a large RCT with adequate sample size and follow-up duration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate whether an additional platelet inhibition with tirofiban would reduce the extent of myocardial damage and prevent periprocedural myonecrosis in patients with Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) with a high residual platelet activity (HPR).Methods: Patients with an HPR, defined as P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) > 230, were randomly assigned to group A (tirofiban treatment, n = 30) or C1 (n = 30) and patients without an HPR to C2 (n = 78). Periprocedural myocardial damage was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) of serial cardiac enzyme levels from the time of the procedure to post-36 h. Periprocedural myonecrosis incidence was evaluated.Results: The troponin I AUC was not different between the groups (197.2 [41.5395.7], 37.9 [8.9313.9], 121.3 [43.7481.8] h∙ng/mL; p = 0.088). The results did not change when the baseline levels were adjusted (365.3 [279.5, 451.1], 293.0 [207.1, 379.0], and 298.0 [244.7, 351.3] h∙ng/mL; p = 0.487). The rate of periprocedural myonecrosis was also not different between the groups (53.0% vs. 50.0% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.092). The CK-MB isoenzyme analysis showed similar results. No difference in complications was noted.Conclusion: Additional tirofiban administration was not beneficial to patients with NSTE-ACS even with an HPR.Trial Registration: Clinical trial no. NCT03114995 , registered 11 April, 2017, retrospectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]