AIMS: To test the equivalence of high-dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban vs. abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in terms of ST-segment resolution (STR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The FATA trial (Facilitated Angioplasty with Tirofiban or Abciximab) was a prospective, multicentre, open-label trial that enrolled 692 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PPCI. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive abciximab (n = 341) or HDB tirofiban (n = 351). Primary endpoint was the rate of complete (> or =70%) STR 90 min after first balloon inflation. Thirty-day incidence of major bleedings, death, re-infarction and new revascularizations was also evaluated. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were well-balanced, with the exception of previous MI rates (tirofiban 6% vs. abciximab 2.6%, P = 0.03). The procedure was successful in 96.7% of the abciximab and in 96.6% of the tirofiban cohort (P = 0.94). Complete STR was obtained in 67.05% of the tirofiban and 70.45% of the abciximab group (Delta -3.4%, 95% confidence interval -10.35 to +3.56), which falls beyond the predefined Delta +/- 10% equivalence boundaries. Rates of secondary endpoints were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study failed to show the equivalence of HBD of tirofiban and abciximab as adjunctive therapy to PPCI.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To test the equivalence of high-dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban vs. abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in terms of ST-segment resolution (STR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The FATA trial (Facilitated Angioplasty with Tirofiban or Abciximab) was a prospective, multicentre, open-label trial that enrolled 692 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PPCI. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive abciximab (n = 341) or HDB tirofiban (n = 351). Primary endpoint was the rate of complete (> or =70%) STR 90 min after first balloon inflation. Thirty-day incidence of major bleedings, death, re-infarction and new revascularizations was also evaluated. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were well-balanced, with the exception of previous MI rates (tirofiban 6% vs. abciximab 2.6%, P = 0.03). The procedure was successful in 96.7% of the abciximab and in 96.6% of the tirofiban cohort (P = 0.94). Complete STR was obtained in 67.05% of the tirofiban and 70.45% of the abciximab group (Delta -3.4%, 95% confidence interval -10.35 to +3.56), which falls beyond the predefined Delta +/- 10% equivalence boundaries. Rates of secondary endpoints were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study failed to show the equivalence of HBD of tirofiban and abciximab as adjunctive therapy to PPCI.
Authors: Walter J Janse van Rensburg; Jan P Roodt; Seb Lamprecht; S Muriel Meiring; Philip N Badenhorst Journal: Clin Exp Med Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Peter B Berger; Judson B Williams; Vic Hasselblad; Karen Chiswell; Karen S Pieper; Robert M Califf Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 2.279