Intracoronary versus intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STEMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundIntracoronary (IC) administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) has been studied as an adjunctive therapy to improve outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IC administration of GPIs compared with those of intravenous (IV) administration in patients with STEMI.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for relevant studies published before September 21, 2022. In total, 22 randomized controlled trials involving 7,699 patients were included.ResultsThe proportions of patients achieving thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow, myocardial blush grade 2/3, and complete ST-segment resolution were significantly higher in the IC group than in the IV group. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37–0.80) and heart failure (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25–0.91) within 1 month were significantly lower in the IC group than in the IV group; however, after 6 months, no difference was observed in MACE risk. Additionally, the risks of death and bleeding did not differ between the two routes of administration.ConclusionsWhen considering adjunctive GPI administration for patients with STEMI, the IC route may offer greater benefits than the IV route in terms of myocardial reperfusion and reduced occurrence of MACE and heart failure within 1 month. Nonetheless, when making decisions for IC administration of GPIs, the absence of a benefit for bleeding risk and difficulty accessing the administration route should be considered.