Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Intracoronary versus Intravenous Administration of Tirofiban during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is known as the most effective treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, without proper therapy and patient management, stent thrombosis after PCI may lead to another myocardial infarction. In addition to aspirin and clopidogrel, tirofiban is often used as an antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. To date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) tirofiban administration for ACS patients undergoing PCI compared with intravenous (IV) administration. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the clinical efficiency and safety of IC versus intravenous (IV) tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI.We searched PubMed and Medline for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IC versus IV administration of tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI. We evaluated the effects of tirofiban on thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow after PCI, TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3 (TMP grade 3), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization (TVR), death, reinfarction and adverse drug effects (specifically bleeding events).Seven trials involving 1,027 patients were included in this meta-analysis. IC administration of tirofiban significantly increased TIMI grade 3 flow (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.37; P = 0.04) and TMP grade 3 (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.09 to 6.49; P = 0.03, I2 = 64%) while reducing MACE (OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.75; P = 0.002) compared with IV administration of tirofiban. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of TVR, death, reinfarction and the incidence of bleeding events between the two groups.This meta-analysis supports the use of IC over IV administration of tirofiban in patients with ACS to improve TIMI flow, TMP flow and MACE. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of bleeding complications between the two groups.

SUBMITTER: Tang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4465926 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Intracoronary versus Intravenous Administration of Tirofiban during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Tang Xiuying X Li Runjun R Jing Quanmin Q Liu Yingfeng Y Liu Peng P

PloS one 20150611 6

<h4>Background</h4>Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is known as the most effective treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, without proper therapy and patient management, stent thrombosis after PCI may lead to another myocardial infarction. In addition to aspirin and clopidogrel, tirofiban is often used as an antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. To date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) tirofiban administration ...[more]

PMID: 26067296

Similar Datasets

Project description:Inconsistent results exist regarding the treatment effectiveness of immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus deferred PCI in ACS patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception up to August 2019. Random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weight mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited 3350 patients were selected for inclusion in the final meta-analysis. Four trials included patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS), whereas the remaining six trials included patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). There were no significant differences between immediate versus deferred PCI for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.76, 95%CI, 0.33-1.75, P = 0.513; STEMI patients: RR, 1.24, 95%CI, 0.80-1.92, P = 0.335), myocardial infarction (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.88, 95%CI, 0.27-2.81, P = 0.826; STEMI patients: RR, 0.86, 95%CI, 0.43-1.74, P = 0.678), all-cause mortality (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.85, 95%CI, 0.38-1.88, P = 0.686; STEMI patients: RR, 1.16, 95%CI, 0.82-1.66, P = 0.407), target vessel revascularisation (NSTEACS patients: RR, 1.26, 95%CI, 0.29-5.43, P = 0.756; STEMI patients: RR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.51-1.97, P = 0.988), or major bleeding (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.99, 95%CI, 0.64-1.54, P = 0.972; STEMI patients: RR, 0.90, 95%CI, 0.45-1.77, P = 0.753). Although patients who underwent immediate PCI may experience increased incidences of cardiac death (RR, 1.19, 95%CI, 0.69-2.07, P = 0.525) and no or slow reflow (RR, 1.60, 95%CI, 0.91-2.84, P = 0.105), these increases were not statistically significant. We noted that immediate versus deferred PCI was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial brush grade 3 (RR, 0.70, 95%CI, 0.56-0.88, P = 0.002); however, no significant differences were observed between immediate and deferred PCI for TIMI III flow (RR, 0.98, 95%CI, 0.93-1.03, P = 0.453), complete ST-segment resolution (RR, 0.93, 95%CI, 0.75-1.17, P = 0.548), and ejection fraction (WMD, -1.05, 95%CI, -2.58 to 0.49, P = 0.182). The findings of this study suggested that deferred PCI did not yield significant benefits for clinical endpoints. Further large-scale RCTs should be conducted to verify the findings of this study.

Project description:Percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin plus bail-out glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors has been shown to be as effective as unfractionated heparin plus routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in preventing cardiac ischemic events, but with a lower bleeding risk. It is unknown whether bivalirudin would have the same beneficial effects if compared with heparin when the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was similar between treatment arms. We searched the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from inception until March 2015 for randomized trials that compared bivalirudin to heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We required that the intended use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was similar between the study groups. Summary estimates were principally constructed by the Peto method. Fifteen trials met our inclusion criteria, which yielded 25,824 patients. Bivalirudin versus heparin was associated with an increased hazard of stent thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.92, P = .002, I2 = 16.9%), with a similar hazard of myocardial infarction (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.22, P = .11, I2 = 35.8%), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.08, P = .21, I2 = 31.5%) and major adverse cardiac events (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.14, P = .46, I2 = 53.9%). Bivalirudin was associated with a reduced hazard of major bleeding (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.92, P = .001, I2 = 63.5%). The dose of heparin in the control arm modified this association; when the dose of unfractionated heparin in the control arm was ≥ 100 units/kg, bivalirudin was associated with a reduction in major bleeding (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.68, P < .0001), but when the dose of unfractionated heparin was ≤ 75 units/kg, bivalirudin was not associated with reduction in bleeding (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.31, P = .36). Among patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin was associated with an increased hazard of stent thrombosis. Bivalirudin may be associated with a reduced hazard of major bleeding; however, this benefit was no longer apparent when compared with a dose of unfractionated heparin ≤ 75 units/kg.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Intracoronary versus Intravenous Administration of Tirofiban during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Intracoronary versus Intravenous Administration of Tirofiban during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets