Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2004 Jan;61(1):31-4.
doi: 10.1002/ccd.10730.

Comparison of intracoronary vs. intravenous administration of abciximab in coronary stenting

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of intracoronary vs. intravenous administration of abciximab in coronary stenting

Aman K Kakkar et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004 Jan.

Abstract

There have been animal and human studies looking at intracoronary (IC) use of abciximab with good short-term clinical outcomes. There exists no data comparing intracoronary with intravenous (IV) administration of abciximab beyond 30 days. We compared the clinical outcomes between the IC (n = 101) and IV (n = 72) group of patients. Patients who had coronary stenting and received abciximab were included in the study. All the patients received the standard systemic bolus dose of abciximab 0.25 mg/kg either via the IC or IV route, followed by a 12-hr IV infusion at 0.125 microg/kg/min. The 6-month composite endpoint of death or myocardial infarction was slightly higher in the IV (13.9%) than in the IC group (5.9%; P = 0.04). The frequency of bleeding complications was similar in both groups. The IC bolus route of abciximab may be superior to the intravenous route. Prospective randomized trials are warranted to validate these findings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources