A randomized trial comparing primary infarct artery stenting with or without abciximab in acute myocardial infarction

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to evaluate the efficacy of abciximab as adjunctive therapy to routine infarct-related artery (IRA) stenting.

Background: The impact of abciximab on the efficacy of myocardial reperfusion and the outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing IRA stenting have not yet been defined.

Methods: In a randomized trial, we assigned 400 patients with AMI to undergo IRA stenting alone or stenting plus abciximab. The primary end point was a composite of death, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stroke at one month.

Results: The incidence of the primary end point was lower in the abciximab group than in the stent only group (4.5% and 10.5%, respectively; p = 0.023), and randomization to abciximab was independently related to the risk of the primary end point (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.97; p = 0.041). Early ST-segment resolution was more frequent in the abciximab group (85% vs. 68%, p < 0.001). Infarct size, as assessed by one-month technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy, revealed smaller infarcts in the abciximab group. At six months, the cumulative difference in mortality between the groups increased (4.5% vs. 8%), and the incidence of the composite of six-month death and reinfarction was lower in the abciximab group than in the stent only group (5.5% and 13.5%, respectively; p = 0.006). Six-month repeat TVR and restenosis rates were similar in the two groups.

Conclusions: Abciximab plus IRA stenting should be considered the routine reperfusion strategy in patients with AMI undergoing primary percutaneous mechanical revascularization, especially in high-risk patients.