Intracoronary versus intravenous bolus abciximab administration in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A pooled analysis of individual patient data from five randomised controlled trials

Raffaele Piccolo, Ingo Eitel, Allan Zeeberg Iversen, Youlan L. Gu, Alberto Dominguez-Rodriguez, Bart J.G.L. De Smet, Karim D. Mahmoud, Pedro Abreu-Gonzalez, Holger Thiele, Federico Piscione*

*Corresponding author for this work
18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: In recent years, intracoronary bolus abciximab has emerged as an alternative to the standard intravenous route in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of the current study was to perform an individual patient-level pooled analysis of randomised trials, comparing intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab bolus use in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Methods and results: Individual data of 3,158 patients enrolled in five trials were analysed. Reperfusion endpoints were: post-procedural Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 3 flow, myocardial blush grade (MBG) 2/3 and complete ST-segment resolution. The primary clinical endpoint of interest was the composite of death and reinfarction at 30 days. Compared with the intravenous route, intracoronary abciximab bolus administration did not improve TIMI 3 flow (odds ratio [OR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90- 1.59; p=0.23) and complete ST-segment resolution (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 0.92-1.63, p=0.17), but increased MBG 2/3 occurrence (OR 1.83, 95% CI: 1.05-3.18, p=0.03). At 30-day follow-up, intracoronary bolus abciximab did not reduce the risk of death and reinfarction (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.55-1.10, p=0.16), death (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.51-1.17, p=0.22), reinfarction (OR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.46-1.33, p=0.38) and stent thrombosis (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.43-1.35, p=0.36) as compared with intravenous administration. Conclusions: In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, intracoronary abciximab does not provide additional benefits as compared with standard intravenous treatment and, therefore, it should not be recommended as the default route of administration in this setting.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuroIntervention
Volume9
Issue number9
Pages (from-to)1110-1120
Number of pages11
ISSN1774-024X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01.2014

Research Areas and Centers

  • Centers: Cardiological Center Luebeck (UHZL)

DFG Research Classification Scheme

  • 205-12 Cardiology, Angiology

Cite this