Combined thrombolytic and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy for acute myocardial infarction: will pharmacological therapy ever equal primary angioplasty?

Abstract

HomeCirculationVol. 99, No. 21Combined Thrombolytic and Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyRedditDiggEmail Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBCombined Thrombolytic and Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction Will Pharmacological Therapy Ever Equal Primary Angioplasty? J. Ward Kennedy and Michael L. Stadius J. Ward KennedyJ. Ward Kennedy From the Cardiology Division, University of Washington and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Seattle, Wash. Search for more papers by this author and Michael L. StadiusMichael L. Stadius From the Cardiology Division, University of Washington and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Seattle, Wash. Search for more papers by this author Originally published1 Jun 1999https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.99.21.2714Circulation. 1999;99:2714–2716The management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was altered dramatically with the introduction of intracoronary thrombolytic therapy in the late l970s by Rentrop and others.1 The visualization of coronary artery occlusion by angiography performed during the first few hours of AMI and the removal of some of these thrombi at the time of emergent coronary artery bypass surgery convinced the medical community that AMI was, as was thought years earlier, due to “coronary thrombosis.” After the publication of a number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of intracoronary and intravenous lytic therapy, reperfusion of acutely occluded coronary artery beds with thrombolytic therapy became a standard treatment of AMI by the mid-1980s.2While thrombolytic therapy was gaining early acceptance as a means to achieve reperfusion, a parallel pathway for achieving reperfusion was developing with catheter-based techniques. Reports of PTCA for the management of AMI appeared in 1983.3 Soon a vigorous competition developed between pharmacological and mechanical methods of reperfusion. Important differences between these 2 competing approaches were apparent. Thrombolytic therapy could be initiated rapidly once the diagnosis was made, with treatment instituted in the emergency department or even before hospitalization,4 and it did not require the technical skills of a proceduralist for its implementation. However, because reperfusion did not occur until 60 to 90 minutes after the onset of treatment, the occurrence of successful reperfusion (or its failure) could not be ascertained with certainty by use of clinical markers, and there was an obligatory risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) of 0.5% to 1.0%, with higher rates experienced in elderly patients.5 With PTCA, on the other hand, there was an obligatory delay between diagnosis and initiation of the procedure, and highly skilled procedural cardiologists and technical staff were required to be available 24 hours a day. Because a minority of hospitals had facilities for the support of primary PTCA, it was often necessary to transfer patients to a tertiary facility. This latter requirement markedly limited the availability of primary angioplasty. Once the emergent procedure was begun, however, some degree of reperfusion was usually achieved within a few minutes, the reperfusion status of the coronary artery was known with certainty, and the presence of severe disease best treated with emergency bypass surgery rather than angioplasty was defined. In addition, experience soon showed that there was virtually no risk of ICH and a low risk of other serious bleeding with this primary mechanical approach.6The most important difference between thrombolytic therapy and emergent PTCA, however, has to do with the achievement of acceptable reperfusion. From the earliest days of thrombolytic trials, it was known that the best clinical outcomes were associated with prompt restoration of normal or near-normal blood flow in the infarct-related artery.7 By the early 1990s, achievement of TIMI 3 (normal) flow through the infarct-related artery was recognized as the goal of reperfusion therapy because of the survival benefit associated with its occurrence.8 And there has been little doubt that mechanical reperfusion has been associated with better success at establishing TIMI 3 reperfusion of infarct arteries than has thrombolytic therapy. The most successful thrombolytic regimen for establishing reperfusion, the front-loaded tissue plasminogen activator protocol, results in TIMI 3 reperfusion in ≈50% of treated arteries.9 Primary balloon angioplasty results in TIMI 3 flow in 46% to 97% of treated arteries, with most series reporting rates in excess of 70%.610 A meta-analysis of a number of small RCTs comparing PTCA with thrombolytic therapy indicated that there was a survival advantage for the mechanical reperfusion technique equal to ≈2 lives saved per 100 treated patients at 30 days after AMI.11 This result was confirmed in the large-scale, multicenter GUSTO IIb trial, in which primary PTCA was associated with a survival advantage of ≈1 life saved per 100 treated patients at 30 days.10 Most recently, mechanical reperfusion techniques have been further buttressed by the use of coronary stents, which appear to provide a small additional benefit compared with balloon angioplasty alone in terms of achieving complete reperfusion of the infarct-related artery bed.12 Although controversy persists,1314 the playing field for these 2 competing reperfusion therapies had definitely shifted by the mid-1990s to favor mechanical techniques if the resources and technical skills that are its prerequisites were in place.Now, the TIMI 14 investigators15 have provided new data that indicate that the combination of partial doses of the thrombolytic agent alteplase and the long-acting platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab with low-dose or very-low-dose heparin infusions can achieve rates of TIMI 3 reperfusion at 60 and 90 minutes that are similar to those achieved with primary angioplasty. In addition, their results, although based on small numbers of patients in the individual dosing groups, were associated with low rates of serious bleeding and ICH. The TIMI 14 results do not stand in isolation. Gold and colleagues,16 in an experimental animal model of acute thrombosis, first demonstrated that synergy existed between the combination of thrombolytic and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor agents for the purpose of achieving reperfusion. Ohman and colleagues17 then reported in a dose-ranging study that the short-acting platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor eptifibatide when combined with alteplase resulted in 90-minute TIMI 3 flow rates of 66% compared with a rate of 39% for alteplase alone. For many years, we have strongly believed that better thrombolytic agents would never be able to achieve high rates of TIMI 3 flow with an acceptable rate of bleeding complications. The results of these investigations have opened a new era in reperfusion therapy by showing that thrombolytic agents alone will no longer be the sole pharmacological means used to achieve and maintain reperfusion. Rather, we will explore combinations of pharmacological agents aimed at different parts of the thrombosis process to determine the best means to achieve pharmacological reperfusion.Where do we go from here? Does this mean that in the very near future, invasive cardiologists will surrender to this improved pharmacological therapy and restrict primary angioplasty to those patients with contraindications to lytic therapy? Will this new therapy result in a marked reduction in the time from diagnosis to effective treatment of AMI, with further reductions in death, myocardial infarction size, and serious bleeding? Or do we still need additional RCTs before we abandon our enthusiasm for primary angioplasty? Unfortunately, as always seems to be the case, additional trials are needed. The rates of serious bleeding and ICH associated with combined reperfusion therapy with both low-dose and very-low-dose heparin protocols need to be determined. It must also be determined what the mortality rates are for this new combined pharmacological approach to reperfusion. Because primary angioplasty has been widely accepted by the cardiology community, data derived from registries, no matter how carefully such registries are performed, are not likely to convince the interventional cardiology establishment to abandon their current heroic approach to reperfusion. Thus, at least one and likely several RCTs demonstrating equivalence or clear superiority of combination drug therapy will be needed before a major shift in treatment will occur. In many countries around the world where intravenous thrombolytic therapy has been the norm for the management of AMI, the transition to combination pharmacological therapy will likely happen more rapidly.And what will be the best combination of pharmacological agents for achieving reperfusion? Will abciximab be the best of the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors for these purposes, or will there be a role for shorter-acting IIb/IIIa inhibitors like eptifibatide or tirofiban?17 The use of low-molecular-weight heparin has recently been shown to be superior to unfractionated heparin in the management of acute coronary syndromes.18 Will low-molecular-weight heparins be of additional benefit when combined with a thrombolytic agent and a IIb/IIIa inhibitor for the purposes of pharmacological reperfusion? In addition, it will be necessary to reconsider the role of oral antithrombotic therapy after the initial intravenous infusion phase of pharmacological reperfusion therapy. Aspirin is the current accepted treatment regimen, but the addition of agents like ticlopidine or clopidogrel may help to further diminish the problems associated with reocclusion after initially successful pharmacological reperfusion. These and other questions need to be addressed. While further studies are being planned and executed, we believe that it is time for some major centers to embrace combination pharmacological reperfusion therapy and reserve primary angioplasty for patients with contraindications to its use. Carefully collected outcome data from such experience will be very helpful in assessing this new approach to the management of AMI.The complexity of applying this new therapy should not be underestimated. In order for this therapy to be used safely, detailed institutional protocols need to be developed that include special staff training, intense and expert monitoring of these patients during therapy, and careful analysis of their outcomes. Protocols for when and how to abandon pharmacological therapy in favor of PTCA will need to be developed. Criteria for coronary angiography after thrombolytic therapy will need to be reconsidered in light of the much higher reperfusion rates that can be anticipated with the new combination therapy.We believe that the TIMI 14 investigators have made a major contribution to the management of AMI. They have identified a combined pharmacological therapy for reperfusion that, with and without some modification, will likely prove to be equivalent or superior to mechanical reperfusion therapy. When this equivalence has been clearly defined, angioplasty of patients with AMI can be limited to those patients for whom pharmacological therapy fails or those who have contraindications to its use.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.FootnotesCorrespondence to J. Ward Kennedy, MD, Cardiology Division (111C), VA Medical Center, 1660 S Columbian Way, Seattle, WA 98108. References 1 Rentrop P, Blanke H, Karsch KR, Kaiser H, Kostering H, Leitz K. Selective intracoronary thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina. Circulation.1981; 63:307–317.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Martin GV, Kennedy JW. Management of acute myocardial infarction. In: Julian D, Braunwald E, eds. Choice of Thrombolytic Agent. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1994.Google Scholar3 Hartzler GO, Rutherford BD, McConahay DR, Johnson WL Jr, McCallister BD, Gura GM Jr, Conn RC, Crockett JE. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with and without thrombolytic therapy for treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J.1983; 106:965–973.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Weaver WD, Cerqueira M, Hallstrom AP, Litwin PE, Martin JS, Kudenchuk PJ, Eisenberg M, for the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project Group. Prehospital-initiated thrombolytic therapy: the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Group. JAMA.1993; 270:1211–1216.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 The GUSTO Investigators. An international trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med.1993; 329:673–682.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, Rothbaum D, Stone GW, O’Keefe J, Overlie P, Donohue B, Chelliah N, Timmis GC, Vliestra RE, Strzelecki M, Purchowicz-Ochocki S, O’Neill WW, for the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study Group. A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med.1993; 328:673–679.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Kennedy JW, Ritchie JL, Davis KB, Stadius ML, Maynard C, Fritz JK. Western Washington Randomized Trial of Intracoronary Streptokinase in Acute Myocardial Infarction: a 12-month follow-up report. N Engl J Med.1985; 312:1073–1078.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Stadius ML. Angiographic monitoring of reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction: TIMI grade 3 perfusion is the goal. Circulation.1993; 87:2055–2057.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 The GUSTO Angiographic Investigators. The effects of tissue plasminogen activator, streptokinase, or both on coronary artery patency, ventricular function, and survival after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med.1993; 329:1615–1622.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 The Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO IIb) Angioplasty Sub-study Group Investigators. A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med.1997; 336:1261–1628.CrossrefGoogle Scholar11 Weaver WD, Simes RJ, Betriu A, Grines CL, Zijlstra F, Garcia E, Grinfeld L, Gibbons RJ, Ribero EE, DeWood MA, Ribichini F. Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA.1997; 278:2093–2098.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Stone GW, Brodie BR, Griffin JJ, Morice MC, Costantini C, St. Goar FG, Overlie PA, Popma JJ, McDonnell J, Jones D, O’Neill WW, Grines CL, for the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) Stent Pilot Trial Investigators. Prospective, multicenter study of the safety and feasibility of primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: in-hospital and 30-day results of the PAMI Stent Pilot Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol.1998; 31:23–30.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Lange RA, Hillis LD. Should thrombolysis or primary angioplasty be the treatment of choice for acute myocardial infarction? N Engl J Med.1996; 335:1311–1312.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Grines CL. Primary angioplasty: the strategy of choice. N Engl J Med.1996; 335:1313–1317.MedlineGoogle Scholar15 Antman EM, Giugliano RP, Gibson CM, McCabe CH, Coussement P, Kleiman NS, Vahanian A, Adgey AAJ, Menown I, Rupprecht H-J, Van der Wieken R, Ducas J, Scherer J, Anderson K, Van de Werf F, Braunwald E, for the TIMI 14 Investigators. Abciximab facilitates the rate and extent of thrombolysis: results of the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 14 trial. Circulation.1999; 99:2720-2732.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Gold HK, Coller BS, Yasuda T, Saito T, Fallon JT, Guerrero JL, Leinbach RC, Ziskin AA, Collen D. Rapid and sustained coronary artery recanalization with combined bolus injection of recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator and monoclonal antiplatelet GP IIb/IIIa antibody in a canine preparation. Circulation.1988; 77:670–677.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Ohman EM, Kleiman NS, Gacioch G, Worley SJ, Navetta FI, Talley JD, Anderson HV, Ellis SG, Cohen MD, Spriggs D, Miller M, Keriakes D, Yakubov S, Kitt MM, Sigmon KN, Califf RM, Krucoff MW, Topol EJ, for the IMPACT-AMI Investigators. Combined accelerated tissue-plasminogen activator and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa integrin receptor blockade with Integrilin in acute myocardial infarction: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial. Circulation.1997; 95:846–854.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Madan M, Berkowitz SD, Tcheng JE. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa integrin blockade. Circulation.1998; 98:2629–2635.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Cohen M, Demers C, Gurfinkel EP, Turpie AGG, Fromell GJ, Goodman S, Langer A, Califf RM, Fox KAA, Premmerreur J, Bigonzi F, for the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Event Study Group. A comparison of low molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med.1997; 337:447–452.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Ribichini F, Ferrero V and Wijns W (2004) Reperfusion treatment of ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction, Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 10.1016/j.pcad.2004.07.007, 47:2, (131-157), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2004. Khouzam R, Apgar D and Phibbs B (2004) Initial Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Chest, 10.1378/chest.126.2.457, 126:2, (457-460), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2004. Lanzer P, Markert T, Frey A and Weser R (2002) Coronary Atherosclerosis: Acute Coronary Syndromes Pan Vascular Medicine, 10.1007/978-3-642-56225-9_49, (746-779), . Junghans U, Seitz R, Wittsack H, Aulich A and Siebler M (2001) Treatment of Acute Basilar Artery Thrombosis with a Combination of Systemic Alteplase and Tirofiban, a Nonpeptide Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor: Report of Four Cases, Radiology, 10.1148/radiol.2213010444, 221:3, (795-801), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2001. Spinler S, Hilleman D, Cheng J, Howard P, Mauro V, Lopez L, Munger M, Gardner S and Nappi J (2016) New Recommendations from the 1999 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Acute Myocardial Infarction Guidelines, Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 10.1345/aph.10319, 35:5, (589-617), Online publication date: 1-May-2001. Klinkhardt U, Graff J, Westrup D, Kirchmaier C, Esslinger H, Breddin H and Harder S (2001) Pharmacodynamic characterization of the interaction between abciximab or tirofiban with unfractionated or a low molecular weight heparin in healthy subjects, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.01446.x, 52:3, (297-305), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2001. Wharton T, Sinclair McNamara N, Fedele F, Jacobs M, Gladstone A and Funk E (2000) Reply, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00715-4, 36:1, (301-303), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2000. Kereiakes D, Smith S, Jacobs A, Kern M and Faxon D (2000) Angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in community hospital without surgical back-up: Response to Wharton and Angelini publications “should guidelines be changed?: Not whether but when”, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00714-2, 36:1, (299-300), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2000. Nash I (2000) Dynamic Assessment in Disease Management, Disease Management and Health Outcomes, 10.2165/00115677-200008030-00003, 8:3, (139-146), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2000. June 1, 1999Vol 99, Issue 21Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 1999 by American Heart Associationhttps://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.99.21.2714 Originally publishedJune 1, 1999 KeywordsEditorialsthrombolysisangioplastymyocardial infarctionPDF download Advertisement