ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the role of adjunctive antiplatelet therapy

Safety and efficacy of early administration of tirofiban in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tirofiban has been widely used as an adjunctive pharmacologic agent for revascularization in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and the outcomes appear attractive. However, the potential benefits from early administration of tirofiban in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) remain unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to September 2012 without language restriction. A total of eight randomized trials (n = 1 577 patients) comparing early (emergency department or ambulance) versus late (catheterization laboratory) administration of tirofiban in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI were included in this meta-analysis. Risk ratio (RR) was computed from individual studies and pooled with random- or fixed-effect models.

RESULTS

There were no differences in post-procedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3 and Corrected TIMI Frame Count (RR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-1.05, P = 0.18; weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.93, 95% CI: -5.37-3.52, P = 0.68, respectively) between the two groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the incidence of 30-day mortality (RR = 1.69, 95% CI: 0.69-4.13, P = 0.25) and re-myocardial infarction (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.21-2.35, P = 0.57) between early and late administration of tirofiban. As to the safety end points, no significant difference was observed in hospital minor bleeding (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.54-2.14, P = 0.83) and hospital and 30-day major bleeding between the two groups (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.46-2.10, P = 0.96; RR = 1.32, 95% CI: 0.59-2.97, P = 0.49, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Early administration of tirofiban in patients undergoing PPCI for STEMI was safe, but no beneficial effects on post-procedural angiographic or clinical outcomes could be identified as compared with late administration. Besides the negative finding, more high-quality randomized clinical trials are still needed to explore the efficacy of adequate, earlier administration of tirofiban in patients undergoing PPCI.

An update on cardioprotection: a review of the latest adjunctive therapies to limit myocardial infarction size in clinical trials

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with subsequent left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the Western world. Rapid advances in the treatment of AMI, mainly through timely reperfusion, have substantially improved outcomes in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and particularly ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A vast amount of research, both translational and clinical, has been published on various pharmacological and interventional techniques to prevent myocardial cell death during the time of ischemia and subsequent reperfusion. Several methods of cardioprotection have shown the ability to limit myocardial infarction size in clinical trials. Examples of interventional techniques that have proven beneficial are ischemic post-conditioning and remote ischemic per-conditioning, both of which can reduce infarction size. Lowering core body temperature with cold saline infusion and cooling catheters have also been shown to be effective in certain circumstances. The most promising pharmaceutical cardioprotective agents at this time appear to be adenosine, atrial natriuretic peptide, and cyclosporine, with other potentially effective medications in the pipeline. Additional pre-clinical and clinical research is needed to further investigate newer cardioprotective strategies to continue the current trend of improving outcomes following AMI.

Prehospital high-dose tirofiban in patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention. The AGIR-2 study

BACKGROUND

Compared with administration in the catheterization laboratory, early treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors provides benefits to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who undergo primary percutaneous intervention. Whether this benefit is maintained on top of a 600 mg loading dose of clopidogrel is unknown.

METHODS

In a multicentre, controlled, randomized study, 320 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention received a high-dose bolus of tirofiban given either in the ambulance (prehospital group) or in the catheterization laboratory. The primary endpoint was a TIMI flow grade 2-3 of the infarct-related vessel at initial angiography. Secondary endpoints included ST-segment resolution 1h after percutaneous coronary intervention and peak serum troponin I concentration.

RESULTS

Tirofiban was administered 48 (95% confidence interval 21.4-75.0) min earlier in the prehospital group. At initial angiography, the combined incidence of TIMI 2-3 flow was 39.7% in the catheterization-laboratory group and 44.2% in the prehospital group (p=0.45). No difference was found on postpercutaneous intervention angiography or peak troponin concentration. Complete ST-segment resolution 60 min after the start of intervention was 55.4% in the catheterization-laboratory group and 52.6% in the prehospital group (p=0.32).

CONCLUSION

Prehospital initiation of high-dose bolus tirofiban did not improve significantly initial TIMI 2 or 3 flow of the infarct-related artery or complete ST-segment resolution after coronary intervention compared with initiation of tirofiban in the catheterization laboratory (NCT00538317).

Balancing myocardial ischemic and bleeding risks in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Achieving an appropriate balance of anti-ischemic efficacy versus bleeding risk with antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents demands an accurate estimation of risks. Although traditional risk stratification is available to decrease complications, and various methods of stratifying these risks have been proposed and validated, the stratification of bleeding risk is in its infancy. However, no model currently available permits the simultaneous estimation of these risks. Ischemic risk may be determined using 1 of several validated models, followed by the estimation of bleeding risk according to known risk factors. After selecting appropriate pharmacotherapy on the basis of the stratification of these risks, attention must be paid to proper dosing according to individual risk factors and patient, clinical, and technical variables. The aim of this study was to examine risk stratification models for these parameters to determine clinical characteristics common to ischemia and bleeding that can be used to minimize risks. A "bleeding risk subscale" is proposed, with factors extrapolated from current ischemic risk models, to integrate ischemic mortality and bleeding risk in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. In conclusion, a validated tool to simultaneously evaluate ischemic and bleeding risk will help determine the most well-balanced pharmacotherapy for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.