The Optimal Route of Administration of the Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Receptor Antagonist Abciximab During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Intravenous Versus Intracoronary

Antiplatelet Agents in Acute ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Platelet aggregation and thrombus formation represent the basic mechanism for clinical, electrocardiographic, and biomarker changes consistent with acute coronary syndrome. Various oral and intravenous formulations of platelet function inhibitors have been developed to help decrease platelet aggregation due to acute atherosclerotic plaque rupture. In this article, we review the various mechanisms, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, and the key clinical trials related to the platelet inhibitors that form the basis for current recommendations of their use in the ST elevation myocardial infarction guidelines by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association.

Antiplatelet Use in Ischemic Stroke

Objective:

A literature review of antiplatelet agents for primary and secondary stroke prevention, including mechanism of action, cost, and reasons for lack of benefit.

Data sources:

Articles were gathered from MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and PubMed databases (1980-2021). Abstracts from scientific meetings were considered. Search terms included ischemic stroke, aspirin, clopidogrel, dipyridamole, ticagrelor, cilostazol, prasugrel, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

Study selection and data extraction:

English-language original and review articles were evaluated. Guidelines from multiple countries were reviewed. Articles were evaluated independently by 2 authors.

Data synthesis:

An abundance of evidence supports aspirin and clopidogrel use for secondary stroke prevention. In the acute phase (first 21 days postinitial stroke), these medications have higher efficacy for preventing further stroke when combined, but long-term combination therapy is associated with higher hemorrhage rates. Antiplatelet treatment failure is influenced by poor adherence and genetic polymorphisms. Antiplatelet agents such as cilostazol may provide extra benefit over clopidogrel and aspirin, in certain racial groups, but further research in more diverse ethnic populations is needed.

Relevance to patient care and clinical practice:

This review presents the data available on the use of different antiplatelet agents poststroke. Dual therapy, recurrence after initiation of secondary preventative therapy, and areas for future research are discussed.

Conclusions:

Although good evidence exists for the use of certain antiplatelet agents postischemic stroke, there are considerable opportunities for future research to investigate personalized therapies. These include screening patients for platelet polymorphisms that confer antiplatelet resistance and for randomized trials including more racially diverse populations.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy during percutaneous coronary interventions: A review for the interventionalist

Pharmacotherapy for percutaneous coronary interventions is essential to optimize the balance between thrombosis and bleeding. Currently, choices abound for the selection of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies during percutaneous intervention (PCI). This review article discusses the mechanisms, pharmacokinetics/dynamics, and clinical data behind the various pharmacotherapies including; aspirin, thienopyridines, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, vorapaxar, heparin, direct thrombin inhibitors, and factor Xa inhibitors.

Intracoronary versus intravenous administration of abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Abciximab is a widely used adjunctive therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the effect of intracoronary (i.c.) administration of abciximab on cardiovascular events remains unclear when compared with intravenous (i.v.) therapy.

METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We systematically searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases and reference lists of articles and proceedings of major meetings for obtaining relevant literature. All eligible trials included ACS patients who received either i.c. administration of abciximab or i.v. therapy. The primary outcome was major cardiovascular events, and secondary outcomes included total mortality, reinfarction, and any possible adverse events. Of 660 identified studies, we included 9 trials reporting data on 3916 ACS patients. Overall, i.c. administration of abciximab resulted in 45% reduction in relative risk for major cardiovascular events (RR; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24-60%), 41% reduction in RR for reinfarction (95% CI, 7-63%), and 44% reduction in RR for congestive heart failure relative to i.v. therapy (95% CI, 8-66%); however, compared to i.v. therapy, i.c. administration of abciximab had no effect on total mortality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.07). No other significant differences were identified between the effect of i.c. abciximab administration and i.v. therapy.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

I.c. administration of abciximab can reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events, reinfarction, and congestive heart failure when compared with i.v. therapy.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome

It is unclear whether intracoronary (IC) bolus administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndromes is superior to intravenous (IV) administration. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effects of IC and IV administrations of GPIs in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for RCTs comparing IC to IV administration of GPIs (abciximab, eptifibatide, tirofiban) during PCI. Data were pooled and stratified into short (1 month to 3 months) and mid-/long-term (≥6 months) follow-up durations. Ten RCTs involving 1,590 patients met our inclusion criteria. Compared to the IV group the IC group was more likely to have complete perfusion (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 3 flow) after PCI (risk ratio [RR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.15). IC administration was associated with similar bleeding rates as IV (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24) but with a significant decrease in short-term target vessel revascularization (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96). IC administration was also associated with a significant decrease in short-term mortality (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.90) but this decrease was no longer significant in mid-/long-term RCTs. In conclusion, compared to IV administration IC administration of GPIs has favorable effects on Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow, target vessel revascularization, and short-term mortality after PCI, with no difference in rates of bleeding. Data regarding mid-/long-term outcomes were limited and inconclusive. Large RCTs with longer follow-up are required to determine long-term safety and efficacy.