Impact of Timing of Eptifibatide Administration on Preprocedural Infarct-Related Artery Patency in Acute STEMI Patients Undergoing Primary PCI
- PMID: 25317034
 - PMCID: PMC4169102
 - DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1382158
 
Impact of Timing of Eptifibatide Administration on Preprocedural Infarct-Related Artery Patency in Acute STEMI Patients Undergoing Primary PCI
Abstract
The appropriate timing of eptifibatide initiation for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. This study aimed to analyze the impact of timing of eptifibatide administration on infarct-related artery (IRA) patency in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Acute STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI (n = 324) were enrolled in this retrospective study; 164 patients received eptifibatide bolus ≤ 30 minutes after emergency department (ED) admission (group A) and 160 patients received eptifibatide bolus > 30 minutes after ED admission (group B). The primary endpoint was preprocedural IRA patency. Most patients in group A (90%) and group B (89%) were late presenters (> 2 hours after symptom onset). The two groups had similar preprocedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 2 or 3 flow of the IRA (26 vs. 24%, p = not significant [NS]), similar creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) levels at 8 hours after admission (339 vs. 281 U/L, p = NS), similar left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (52 vs. 50%, p = NS), and similar 30-day mortality (2 vs. 7%, p = NS). Compared with group B, patients in group A had shorter door-to-device time (p < 0.001) and shorter procedural time (p = 0.004), without increased bleeding risk (13 vs. 18%, p = NS). Earlier intravenous administration of eptifibatide before primary PCI did not improve preprocedural IRA patency, CK-MB level at 8 hours after admission, LVEF and 30-day mortality compared with patients who received intravenous eptifibatide that was administered later.
Keywords: glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor; primary PCI; timing of administration.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
              
              
              
              
                
                
                
              
              
              
              
                
                
                References
- 
    
- Zijlstra F, Hoorntje J C, de Boer M J. et al.Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(19):1413–1419. - PubMed
 
 - 
    
- Dalby M, Bouzamondo A, Lechat P, Montalescot G. Transfer for primary angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2003;108(15):1809–1814. - PubMed
 
 - 
    
- Keeley E C, Boura J A, Grines C L. Comparison of primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative review of randomised trials. Lancet. 2006;367(9510):579–588. - PubMed
 
 - 
    
- Dharma S, Kedev S, Jukema J W. Thrombus management in the catheterisation laboratory in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention: what is the current evidence? Heart. 2013;99(4):279–284. - PubMed
 
 
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
