BACKGROUND: Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists reduce complications following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are limited data comparing different agents. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in 2 sequential cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing PCI at our institution who received abciximab or eptifibatide. METHODS: The first cohort included patients who received abciximab between September 1, 1998, and January 9, 1999, and the second included patients who were treated with eptifibatide between January 11 and April 27, 1999. Per formulary decision, during the latter period, patients with renal insufficiency continued to be treated with abciximab and were ineligible for therapy with eptifibatide. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were evaluated by one or more of the authors and compared. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were treated with abciximab and 301 with eptifibatide. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups, with the exception of a significantly higher proportion of patients with chronic renal insufficiency in the abciximab-treated group (4% vs 0% with eptifibatide; P = 0.03) The majority of interventions were performed for an acute coronary syndrome. Procedural success was 97% in both groups. Eptifibatide patients were treated for a mean 20.4 (5.2) hours, with 10.1% receiving the drug before the procedure. There were no differences in overall or individual MACEs in hospital or at 30 days. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest similar in-hospital and 30-day outcomes for abciximab- and eptifibatide-treated patients undergoing PCI.
BACKGROUND: Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists reduce complications following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are limited data comparing different agents. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital and 30-day outcomes in 2 sequential cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing PCI at our institution who received abciximab or eptifibatide. METHODS: The first cohort included patients who received abciximab between September 1, 1998, and January 9, 1999, and the second included patients who were treated with eptifibatide between January 11 and April 27, 1999. Per formulary decision, during the latter period, patients with renal insufficiency continued to be treated with abciximab and were ineligible for therapy with eptifibatide. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were evaluated by one or more of the authors and compared. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were treated with abciximab and 301 with eptifibatide. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups, with the exception of a significantly higher proportion of patients with chronic renal insufficiency in the abciximab-treated group (4% vs 0% with eptifibatide; P = 0.03) The majority of interventions were performed for an acute coronary syndrome. Procedural success was 97% in both groups. Eptifibatidepatients were treated for a mean 20.4 (5.2) hours, with 10.1% receiving the drug before the procedure. There were no differences in overall or individual MACEs in hospital or at 30 days. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest similar in-hospital and 30-day outcomes for abciximab- and eptifibatide-treated patients undergoing PCI.
Authors: Michael Koutouzis; Bo Lagerqvist; Jonas Oldgren; Axel Akerblom; Magnus Wahlin; Thomas Karlsson; Per Albertsson; Göran Matejka; Lars Grip Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Sarah Dewilde; Bernd Brüggenjürgen; Christoph Nienaber; Jochen Senges; Robert Welte; Stefan N Willich Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2011-04-12