Intracoronary versus Intravenous eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

Although aspirin and clopidogrel seem to be quite enough during low risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the combination may need some reinforcement in complex situations such as primary PCI. By modifying the route and also the duration of administration, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors might be a viable option. The aim of this study is to compare the benefits and disadvantages of three different methods of administration of eptifibatide in primary PCI population. Primary PCI candidates were randomized in three groups on which three different methods of administration of eptifibitide were tested: intravenous bolus injection followed by 12-h infusion (IV-IV), intracoronary bolus injection followed by intravenous infusion (IC-IV) and, only intracoronary bolus injection (IC). 99 patients were included in the present study. There was no significant difference among the three groups regarding all cause in hospital and one month mortality (p value=0.99), re-myocardial infarction (p value=0.89), post-PCI TIMI flow grade 3 (p value=0.97), ST segment resolution (p value=0.77) and peak troponin levels (p value=0.82). The comparison of vascular access and major bleeding complications were not possible due to low events rate. By modifying the route of administration of eptifibitide, the clinical effect might be preserved without increasing the short-term mortality and procedural failure.