Ahmed A Ghonim1, Abdalla Mostafa2, Ahmed Emara2, Alaa S Algazzar3, Mohammed A Qutub4. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Naser Institute for Research and Therapy, Cairo, Egypt. 2. Cardiology Department, Menofia University, Almenofia Egypt. 3. Cardiology Department, Ahmed Maher Teaching Hospital, Cairo, Egypt. Email: goodminds@hotmail.com. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous trials remain inconsistent regarding the advantages and hazards related to intracoronary (IC) compared with intravenous (IV) administration of thrombolytics. We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IC versus IV tirofiban administration in diabetic patients (DM) with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: This trial included 95 patients who were randomised to high-dose bolus plus a maintenance dose of tirofiban administered either IV or IC. The groups were compared for the incidence of composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. Levels of cardiac markers were recorded pre- and post-intervention for myocardial perfusion. RESULTS: The MACE were not different between the groups, but post-procedure myocardial blush grade (MBG) 3 and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow were significant in the IC group (p = 0.45, 0.21, respectively), favouring the IC strategy. Peak values of both creatine kinase-muscle/brain (CK-MB) and high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) were significantly lower in the IC group (155.68 ± 121, 4291 ± 334 ng/dl) versus the IV group (192.4 ± 86, 5342 ± 286 ng/dl) (p = 0.021, p = 0.035, respectively). The peak value was significantly lower in the IC group than the IV group in terms of ST-segment resolution and 30-day left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p = 0.016 and 0.023, respectively). CONCLUSION: Thirty days post PCI, IC tirofiban was more efficient in ameliorating blood flow in the coronary arteries and myocardial tissue perfusion in DM patients after STEMI despite bleeding events, and MACE rates showed no significant difference between the groups. The IC group showed better improvement in LVEF.
BACKGROUND: Previous trials remain inconsistent regarding the advantages and hazards related to intracoronary (IC) compared with intravenous (IV) administration of thrombolytics. We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IC versus IV tirofiban administration in diabetic patients (DM) with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: This trial included 95 patients who were randomised to high-dose bolus plus a maintenance dose of tirofiban administered either IV or IC. The groups were compared for the incidence of composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. Levels of cardiac markers were recorded pre- and post-intervention for myocardial perfusion. RESULTS: The MACE were not different between the groups, but post-procedure myocardial blush grade (MBG) 3 and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow were significant in the IC group (p = 0.45, 0.21, respectively), favouring the IC strategy. Peak values of both creatine kinase-muscle/brain (CK-MB) and high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) were significantly lower in the IC group (155.68 ± 121, 4291 ± 334 ng/dl) versus the IV group (192.4 ± 86, 5342 ± 286 ng/dl) (p = 0.021, p = 0.035, respectively). The peak value was significantly lower in the IC group than the IV group in terms of ST-segment resolution and 30-day left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p = 0.016 and 0.023, respectively). CONCLUSION: Thirty days post PCI, IC tirofiban was more efficient in ameliorating blood flow in the coronary arteries and myocardial tissue perfusion in DM patients after STEMI despite bleeding events, and MACE rates showed no significant difference between the groups. The IC group showed better improvement in LVEF.
Authors: Patrick T O'Gara; Frederick G Kushner; Deborah D Ascheim; Donald E Casey; Mina K Chung; James A de Lemos; Steven M Ettinger; James C Fang; Francis M Fesmire; Barry A Franklin; Christopher B Granger; Harlan M Krumholz; Jane A Linderbaum; David A Morrow; L Kristin Newby; Joseph P Ornato; Narith Ou; Martha J Radford; Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland; Carl L Tommaso; Cynthia M Tracy; Y Joseph Woo; David X Zhao; Jeffrey L Anderson; Alice K Jacobs; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Ralph G Brindis; Mark A Creager; David DeMets; Robert A Guyton; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; Frederick G Kushner; E Magnus Ohman; William G Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E J Topol; D J Moliterno; H C Herrmann; E R Powers; C L Grines; D J Cohen; E A Cohen; M Bertrand; F J Neumann; G W Stone; P M DiBattiste; L Demopoulos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-06-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J H Chesebro; G Knatterud; R Roberts; J Borer; L S Cohen; J Dalen; H T Dodge; C K Francis; D Hillis; P Ludbrook Journal: Circulation Date: 1987-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jaroslaw Zalewski; Krzysztof Nycz; Tadeusz Przewlocki; Monika Durak; Michal Cul; Wojciech Zajdel; Krzysztof Zmudka Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Nahush A Mokadam; Ryland E Melford; Charles Maynard; John R Goss; Douglas Stewart; Mark Reisman; Gabriel S Aldea Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2010-10-03 Impact factor: 1.620