Use Of Eptifibatide Research Articles

Abstract W P307: Novel Application of Reversible Parental Anti-platelets in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Background and Objective: The International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) showed a greater likelihood of survival free 1 year disability in patients undergoing endovascular coiling who were started on antiplatelet agents after SAH compared to ones undergoing neurosurgical clipping. However, data on safety of acute parental antiplatelet agents after aneurysmal coiling is lacking. We report on the safety of IV Eptifibatide (rapidly reversible Glyprotein IIbIIIa inhibitor) on patients presenting with acute subarachnoid hemorrhage undergoing endovascular coiling for aneurysmal embolization. Methods: All the patients from 2009-13 who presented to our university affiliated comprehensive stroke center with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and underwent endovascular coiling were included for the study. Patients that received IV Eptifibatide for various reasons including acute need for stent assist coiling after securing the ruptured aneurysm with endovascular coiling were reviewed. Eptifibatide was administered intra-arterially as a 135-μg/kg single-dose bolus, and then continued on intravenous infusion of 0.5-μg/kg/min post-procedurally. Charts were reviewed for all patients to assess for medical/procedural complications including symptomatic and asymptomatic intra- and extra-cranial hemorrhages, groin hematomas, epistaxis and gross hematuria. Results: Of the total of 93 patients treated with coil embolization during this period, 5 patients (mean age 56 years, 20% male [n=1]) received acute intra-procedural Eptifibatide followed by IV infusion for a mean duration of 77 hours (range 20-130 hours). Various reasons for use of Eptifibatide included: stent assist coiling [n=2], multiple stents for flow diversion [n=1], partial coil prolapse [n=1] and vascular lumen flow compromise [n=1]. None of the patients demonstrated symptomatic/asymptomatic hemorrhage, groin hematoma, epistaxis or hematuria. Conclusion: Our results may highlight safety of administering IV Eptifibatide to prevent thrombotic complications after endovascular coil embolization in select patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Multicenter prospective trials are warranted to corroborate our findings.

Effect of a Shortened-Duration Eptifibatide Infusion (75 mg) as Adjunctive Therapy for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Inhospital Cardiovascular Outcomes and Bleeding

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before and after a practice change which reduced the infusion duration of eptifibatide from 18 hours to the time required for completion of a single vial of 75 mg initiated during PCI. Primary end points were inhospital cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and major or minor bleeding. The secondary end point was drug cost. A total of 1,647 patients received the standard-duration infusion (18 hours), and 1,237 received the short-duration infusion. The median infusion times were 18.1 hours (interquartile range 17.7 to 18.7) and 6.6 hours (interquartile range 5.6 to 11.3) in the standard- and short-duration groups, respectively. No differences were found for the rate of inhospital cardiovascular events (2.0% vs 1.9%, respectively; p = 0.78) or inhospital revascularization (0.2% vs 0.3%, respectively; p = 0.68). Also, no statistically significant difference was observed in major bleeding (standard 4.3% vs short 4.4%; p = 0.94) or minor bleeding (standard 3.3% vs short 2.3%; p = 0.09). In conclusion, using a shortened infusion reduced eptifibatide use by an average of 1.6 vials at cost savings of $823 per patient and resulted in no difference in inhospital cardiovascular events, revascularization, or bleeding.

Clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide in coronary stenting.

Platelet adhesion and aggregation at the site of coronary stenting can have catastrophic clinical and economic consequences. Therefore, effective platelet inhibition is vital during and after percutaneous coronary intervention. Eptifibatide is an intravenous antiplatelet agent that blocks the final common pathway of platelet aggregation and thrombus formation by binding to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptors on the surface of platelets. In clinical studies, eptifibatide was associated with a significant reduction of mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, recent trials conducted in the era of dual antiplatelet therapy and newer anticoagulants failed to demonstrate similar results. The previously seen favorable benefit of eptifibatide was mainly offset by the increased risk of bleeding. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend its use as an adjunct in high-risk patients who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional anticoagulants (heparin or enoxaparin), who are not otherwise at high risk of bleeding. In patients receiving bivalirudin (a newer safer anticoagulant), routine use of eptifibatide is discouraged except in select situations (eg, angiographic complications). Although older pharmacoeconomic studies favor eptifibatide, in the current era of P2Y12 inhibitors and newer safer anticoagulants, the increased costs associated with bleeding make the routine use of eptifibatide an economically nonviable option. The cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide with the use of strategies that decrease the bleeding risk (eg, transradial access) is unknown. This review provides an overview of key clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide well into the current era of potent antiplatelet agents, novel safer anticoagulants, and contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Angiographic Outcomes With Early Eptifibatide Therapy in Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (from the EARLY ACS Trial)

Early administration of glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors results in improved angiographic parameters, including thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade, corrected TIMI frame count, and TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Whether the same is true in the setting of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome is unknown. The goal of the early glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibition in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (EARLY ACS) angiographic substudy was to compare angiographic outcomes among patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome who were administered early routine versus delayed provisional eptifibatide. Of 9,406 patients in the EARLY ACS trial, 2,066 patients were included in the angiographic substudy (early routine eptifibatide [n=1,042] or early placebo [n=1,024] with delayed provisional eptifibatide after angiography and before percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]). The angiographic substudy primary end point was the incidence of TMPG 3 before and after PCI. TMPG 3 before (43.7% vs 44.9%, p=0.58) and after PCI (52.4% vs 50.1%, p=0.73) was similar for early routine versus delayed provisional eptifibatide, respectively. Angiographic procedural complications consisting of a composite of loss of side branch, abrupt vessel closure, distal embolization, and no reflow occurred less frequently in early routine group versus delayed provisional group (9.3% vs 13.6%, respectively, p=0.01). In the EARLY ACS angiographic substudy, the use of early routine eptifibatide resulted in fewer angiographic procedural complications. These data provide support for the use of eptifibatide in the catheterization laboratory during high-risk cases merely to prevent angiographic procedural complications.

Treatment of mechanical aortic valve thrombosis with heparin and eptifibatide

A 75-year old woman with a history of coronary disease status post 3-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) 8 years ago and a repeat one-vessel CABG 2 years ago in the setting of aortic valve replacement with a #19 mm St. Jude bileaflet mechanical valve for severe aortic stenosis presented with two to three weeks of progressive dyspnea and increasing substernal chest discomfort. Echocardiography revealed a gradient to 31 mmHg across her aortic valve, increased from a baseline of 13 mmHg five months previously. Fluoroscopy revealed thrombosis of her mechanical aortic valve. She was not a candidate for surgery given her multiple comorbidities, and fibrinolysis was contraindicated given a recent subdural hematoma 1 year prior to presentation. She was treated with heparin and eptifibatide and subsequently demonstrated resolution of her aortic valve thrombosis. We report the first described successful use of eptifibatide in addition to unfractionated heparin for the management of subacute valve thrombosis in a patient at high risk for repeat surgery or fibrinolysis.

301

Introduction: Eptifibatide is a potent intravenous platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administered as adjunctive therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Since the introduction of dual antiplatelet therapy loading before PCI, it is uncertain whether an 18-hour eptifibatide infusion is of value in decreasing thrombotic complications. In June 2009, our institution implemented a protocol change for patients to receive a total infusion of 1 vial (4–18 hours) of eptifibatide. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact on clinical outcomes and drug cost associated with this shortened eptifibatide infusion as adjunctive therapy for PCI. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted comparing patients who received the shortened duration eptifibatide infusion (June 2009 to December 2011) to patients prior to the protocol change (January 2007 to May 2009). Primary endpoints were in-hospital cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass, or stroke), target vessel revascularization and major or minor bleeding (major bleeds were any central nervous system, retroperitoneal, gastrointestinal bleed, or the requirement of blood transfusion; minor bleeds were any hematoma or vascular access bleed). The secondary endpoints were 30 day survival and drug acquisition cost represented as average wholesale price. Results: 2884 unique patients were studied with 1647 (57.1%) enrolled in the standard duration group (18–24 hours) and 1237 (42.9%) enrolled in the short duration group. The median infusion time was 18.1 hours (IQR 17.7–18.7) vs. 6.6 hours (IQR 5.6–11.3) in the standard and short duration groups, respectively. Comparing standard and short duration found no differences for rate of in-hospital cardiac events (2.00% vs. 1.86%, respectively; P = 0.78) or in-hospital revascularization (0.24% vs. 0.32%, respectively; P = 0.68). Also, no statistically significant difference was observed in major bleeding (standard 4.3% vs. short 4.4%; P = 0.94) or minor bleeding (standard 3.3% vs. short 2.3%; P=0.09). Employing a shortened infusion reduced eptifibatide use by 1–2 vials (75 mg vial) at cost savings of $388 to $776 per patient in this study. Conclusions: Implementing a protocol that reduced the duration of eptifibatide infusion as adjunctive therapy for PCI provided significant drug cost savings without a significant change in the rates of in-hospital cardiac events or bleeding.

Is eptifibatide a safe and effective rescue therapy in thromboembolic events complicating cerebral aneurysm coil embolization? Single-center experience in 42 cases and review of the literature

Thromboembolic complications are the most frequent perioperative complications of endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Even if the effectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors has been reported, the outcomes in published clinic data are contradictory. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and the safety of eptifibatide in thromboembolic complications during intracranial aneurysm embolization procedure. Between 2006 and 2012, 650 patients with intracranial aneurysm were treated using endovascular coil embolization, and in 62 cases (9.5 %), an intra-arterial thrombus developed. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor was administrated in 45 of them who required a rescue treatment. These 45 patients were treated with an intra-arterial bolus (0.2 mg/kg) of eptifibatide. We respectively reviewed the angiographic and clinical outcomes, and the periprocedural complications of the rescue treatment. No intra- or early postoperative (48 h) bleeding was observed after treatment. A total recovery of the entire arterial tree (TICI 3) was established in 28 cases (62.2 %), a partial revascularization in 13 cases (28.8 %) (5 TICI 2A and 8 TICI 2B), and no revascularization or reperfusion (TICI 0 or TICI 1) in 4 cases (9 %). Eptifibatide was more effective on proximal obstructions and in-stent occlusions than on peripheral distal thrombus, which were completely disintegrated one time out of three. Intra-operative intra-arterial use of eptifibatide does not imply an increase of hemorrhagic events. Even if eptifibatide allows for a high rate of arterial recanalization, its effectiveness seems to be less important in cases of distal occlusions.

The use of eptifibatide for suspected pump thrombus or thrombosis in patients with left ventricular assist devices

Pump thrombosis in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) continues to present treatment challenges. Anti-coagulation strategies used to treat this complication are empiric and without firm data for guidance. The addition of a platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor to intravenous anti-coagulation has been suggested by several case series and recent guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate our use of eptifibatide for the treatment of suspected pump thrombus/thrombosis. This retrospective, single-center cohort study was performed at Barnes-Jewish Hospital. The medical informatics system was queried to identify all LVAD patients who received eptifibatide for suspected pump thrombus/thrombosis from January 1, 2011, through April 30, 2013. A total of 17 patients (16 HeartMate II [Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA], 1 HeartWare [HeartWare International Inc, Framingham, MA]) with 22 separate administration attempts received eptifibatide (dose range, 0.1-2 μg/kg/min) for suspected pump thrombus/thrombosis presenting as one or more of the following findings: elevated lactate dehydrogenase, decreased haptoglobin, elevated plasma free hemoglobin, LVAD dysfunction, or new, persistently high LVAD power. The mean time from device implantation to eptifibatide therapy was 47.34 days (range, 3.88-397.67 days). Of the 22 attempts, 5 (22.7%) resulted in resolution of 1 or more patient-specific indicators of LVAD thrombus/thrombosis. Three patients (17.6%) had resolution of an indicator while also remaining free from continued hemolysis, death, pump exchange, or emergent heart transplant. Bleeding events were common, with 11 patients (64.7%) experiencing bleeding during the infusion. Seven patients (41.2%) died, with intraparenchymal hemorrhage as the cause of death in 2 patients. Pump exchange was performed in 3 patients. Our limited experience indicates the risk of using eptifibatide outweighs the proposed benefit of salvaging the existing LVAD in the setting of suspected pump thrombus/thrombosis at our institution.

Comparative effectiveness of upstream glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes: An Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) substudy

Tirofiban and eptifibatide are both small-molecule, competitive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPIs) that are guideline-supported for upstream therapy in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). This study sought to compare the efficacy and safety of tirofiban and eptifibatide in patients with ACS. Within the ACUITY trial, 4,323 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS received upstream, adjunctive GPI (tirofiban or eptifibatide) in addition to an antithrombin. Primary outcomes included 30-day rates of composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding (not related to coronary artery bypass grafting), and composite net adverse clinical events (NACE). The outcomes were compared based on the upstream GPI administered. There were significant differences in the baseline characteristics of patients treated with tirofiban vs eptifibatide, particularly related to country/region. In unadjusted analyses, treatment with upstream tirofiban vs eptifibatide was associated with similar rates of major bleeding (5.8% vs 6.5%, P = .39) and nonsignificantly lower rates of MACE (6.1% vs 7.6%, P = .06) and NACE (10.6% vs 12.6%, P = .06). After propensity-based multivariable adjustment, there were no significant differences between tirofiban and eptifibatide with respect to 30-day major bleeding, MACE, or NACE. Among more than 4,000 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS treated with upstream GPI as part of an early invasive management strategy, the use of tirofiban and eptifibatide resulted in similar clinical outcomes. These data suggest equivalence of these 2 agents for upstream use, while highlighting some of the difficulties of nonrandomized comparative effectiveness analyses, specifically the difficulty in addressing geographic differences in the use of nonrandomized treatments.

Epitifibatide in the Treatment of Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Thrombosis: A Case Series

Purpose Continuous flow left ventricular assist device (cfLVAD) thrombosis remains one of the most difficult complications to diagnose and treat. There is limited evidence for anticoagulation strategies after failure of heparin/warfarin. We present a single-center case series of suspected cfLVAD thrombosis treated with eptifibatide (EPT) after failing conventional therapy. Methods and Materials We reviewed all cfLVAD implants (n=83) from 1/2010 to present. Diagnostic evidence of cfLVAD thrombosis evaluated included 1) echo evidence of thrombosis, 2) evidence of hemolysis, and 3) changes in cfLVAD parameters. Successful treatment was defined as discharge from hospital and freedom from 30-day readmission without treatment with an alternative anticoagulant, cfLVAD explant/exchange, or heart transplant. Results Eleven patients (16 infusions) were treated with EPT. The majority were male (73%) with a mean age of 46 (21-67) years. All patients were on warfarin and an antiplatelet regimen. The mean time from cfLVAD implant to thrombosis was 201 (5-856) days. Most patients presented with evidence of hemolysis and changes in cfLVAD parameters. Fifty percent of patients were successfully treated with EPT infused for an average of 71 (22-119) hours. Blood transfusions occurred in 6/16 EPT infusions and minor bleeding occurred in 2/16 EPT infusions. Conclusions This review failed to identify a single surrogate marker of cfLVAD thrombosis that may predict response to EPT. For patients with suspected thrombosis failing standard anticoagulation the use of EPT appears safe and effective. This approach warrants further study. Baseline characteristics and outcome after EPT treatment Patient cfLVAD generation Echo evidence of thrombosis Peak LDH (U/L) Δ in cfLVAD parameters EPT success A-1 2nd + 939 + + A-2 2nd − -- + + B 2nd − 3065 + + C-1 2nd − 860 + − C-2 2nd + -- + + D-1 2nd + 5666 + − D-2 2nd − 815 + − E 2nd − 766 + + F 3rd − 4860 + − G 3rd − 1751 + + H 2nd + 889 + − I-1 2nd + 1035 + − I-2 2nd − 900 + − J 2nd − 1018 + + K-1 2nd − 3714 − + K-2 2nd − 1014 − −

Bivalirudin for the Treatment of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (The Medicines Company) of bivalirudin to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness within its licensed indication for the treatment of adults with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) intended for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), as part of NICE's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a review of the evidence within the manufacturer's submission to NICE. This article describes the manufacturer's submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The main evidence was derived from one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of STEMI patients intended for PPCI, comparing bivalirudin with unfractionated heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). Bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in cardiac mortality at 30days (p=0.03) and at 1-year follow-up (p=0.005), and a significant reduction in major bleeding at 30days (p<0.001) and 1year (p<0.0001), compared with heparin plus GPI. Stent thrombosis up to 24 hours following PPCI was significantly (p<0.001) more common with bivalirudin. However, there was no significant treatment effect for stent thrombosis from 1 to 30days (p=0.28), or at 1-year follow-up (p=0.53). There were no significant treatment group differences at 30days and at 1year in stroke (p=0.68 and p=0.99, respectively), in myocardial infarction [MI] (p=0.90 and p=0.22, respectively), or in the need for the revascularization of the target vessel for ischaemia (p=0.18 and p=0.12, respectively). There were two decision-analytic models: the base-case scenario used 1-year follow-up data from the RCT; and a sensitivity analysis used 3-year follow-up data. Resource use was primarily drawn from this RCT. Health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) estimates were drawn from a UK cohort study. Both models evaluated the incremental costs and outcomes of bivalirudin compared with heparin plus GPI for patients with STEMI intended for PPCI. The analysis adopted a UK NHS perspective over a lifetime horizon. Unit costs were based on year 2009-2010 prices. The model adopted a decision-tree structure to reflect initial events for the initial period (stroke, repeat MI, minor/major bleeding events, repeat revascularization and death) and a two-state Markov component to simulate longer-term survival. The economic analysis suggested that bivalirudin is expected to dominate the heparin plus GPI strategy. This finding was consistent across the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and the vast majority of deterministic sensitivity analyses undertaken. Three exceptions to this finding were observed for the following sensitivity analyses: (1) the exclusive use of eptifibatide as the GPI (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]=£1,764); (2) the combination of 100% eptifibatide use, 100% radial arterial access and no differential length between strategies for initial hospital stay (ICER=£4,106); and (3) a longer length of ward stay (increase of 0.33days) for the initial hospitalization (ICER=£415). The Appraisal Committee (AC) gave a positive recommendation for bivalirudin for the treatment of adults with STEMI undergoing PPCI.

Clinical outcomes and cost implications of routine early PCI after fibrinolysis: One-year follow-up of the Trial of Routine Angioplasty and Stenting after Fibrinolysis to Enhance Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRANSFER-AMI) study

In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolysis, routine early percutaneous coronary intervention (r-PCI) improves clinical outcomes at 30 days compared with a more standard approach of performing early PCI only for failed fibrinolysis (s-PCI). We report prespecified secondary clinical outcomes and cost implications of r-PCI compared with s-PCI from the Canadian TRANSFER-AMI trial. Average cost per patient in each arm was calculated based on a microcosting approach. Bootstrap method (5,000 samples) was used to calculate standard errors and 95% CI. At 1 year, rates of death or reinfarction (10.3% vs 11.6%, P = .50), hospital readmission (15.4% vs 16.5%, P = .64) and subsequent revascularization after index hospitalization (6.9% vs 8.7%, P = .30) were similar between the r-PCI and s-PCI arms. The difference in cost per patient between r-PCI and s-PCI was CAD $1,003 (95% CI, -$247 to $2,211). Since a greater proportion of patients were transported by air (vs land) in the r-PCI arm (9.4% vs 3%), and the ratio of abciximab to eptifibatide use was higher in the r-PCI arm compared with s-PCI (2:1 vs 4:5), we undertook additional post hoc cost scenario analyses. In a scenario where patients are transported by land only and eptifibatide is used as the sole GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor, the difference in cost per patient between r-PCI and s-PCI was estimated to be CAD $108 (95% CI, -$1,114 to $1,344). At 1 year, there is no difference in the clinical composite outcome of death or reinfarction between r-PCI and s-PCI strategies. Greater cost with r-PCI, although statistically insignificant, is economically important.

How Safe is Eptifibatide during Urgent Carotid Artery Stenting?

Background: Glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibitors are occasionally utilized during carotid artery stenting (CAS) in the presence or absence of a visualized intra-operative thrombus.Objective: We assess the hemorrhagic and clinical outcomes associated with the use of eptifibatide during CAS.Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients with the diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis underwent CAS in a single center. We identified those who received intravenous eptifibatide intra-operatively and compared to the rest of the cohort. Hemorrhagic outcomes included intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or groin hematoma that occurred during the hospital stay.Results: In this analysis, 81 patients had CAS during a 3-year span; 16 of those had received 15 mg of intravenous eptifibatide intra-operatively. The mean age of the treated and untreated patients was similar (65.6 ± 13.4 versus 65.4 ± 10.2; P = 0.13). One patient (1.2%) in this series had ICH in the perioperative period that occurred in the non-eptifibatide group. Five patients (6.2%) in this series had groin hematoma; only one in the non-eptifibatide group required surgical repair. No mortality was reported and clinical outcomes including discharge modified Rankin scale, NIH stroke scale, as well as discharge destination were similar in both groups. A stratified analysis among those who underwent an urgent CAS showed no significant differences in the risks of hemorrhages or any clinical outcome (P > 0.05).Conclusion: The use of eptifibatide during CAS is safe. The risk of any hemorrhagic complication is rare in this series; however, a prospective study to validate this observation will be helpful.

Use of Eptifibatide as a Bridge Antiplatelet Agent for Intrathecal Drug Delivery System Placement

Use of antiplatelet agents is becoming increasingly common, and their management may require new strategies if neuroaxial techniques are to be employed in patients who will not tolerate discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. The patient was a 46-year-old man with a past medical history significant for coronary artery disease and who had undergone 14 stents. He developed stent thrombosis (ST) while on clopidogrel. Following the ST, he was subsequently placed on prasugrel. While on prasugrel, the patient presented for an intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) trial and placement due to severe peripheral neuropathy unresponsive to several conservative medical treatments. He had previously undergone an unsuccessful spinal cord stimulator trial and received no pain relief. In consultation with his outside cardiologist, the patient received permission to hold his prasugrel for 7 days prior to his intrathecal pump trial. During the trial period’s inpatient hospitalization, the patient developed chest pain. In consultation with the cardiology service in our institution, it was decided antiplatelet therapy should be re-instituted. The patient was bridged to his IDDS placement after the trial with intravenous eptifibatide. The eptifibatide drip was administered 6 hours prior to the IDDS implant. Functional platelet count was checked one hour before the IDDS was placed and the pump was placed without incident. The eptifibatide drip was reinstituted one hour after the IDDS implantation. The patient was observed for 24 hours on the eptifibatide drip, transitioned to his home dose of prasugrel, and discharged home. At outpatient follow-up one week later, the patient demonstrated no neurologic or hemorrhagic complications and was satisfied with the pain control provided by the IDDS. Prasugrel is an irreversible platelet inhibitor, which prevents ADP-induced platelet aggregation by binding the P2Y12 receptor. Patients taking prasugrel will have deficient platelet activity until new platelets have been produced, a span of approximately 7 days. Eptifibatide is an intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor with a short half-life of 2½ hours. Inhibition of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa prevents platelet activation and aggregation. The drug effect ceases once it is discontinued and restoration of platelet function is not dependent upon new platelet production. Patients requiring antiplatelet therapy in need of neuroaxial pain management procedures present challenging problems to pain management physicians. Current guidelines from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia have not identified any bridging agent suitable for patients who may not tolerate prolonged withdrawal from their antiplatelet therapy. In this case, eptifibatide was successfully utilized to bridge a patient whose comorbid conditions necessitated continuous antiplatelet therapy without the prolonged washout common to irreversible antiplatelet agents. Key words: Intrathecal drug delivery system, anticoagulation, pain, eptifibatide, antiplatelet agents.

Age, treatment, and outcomes in high-risk non‐ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: Insights from the EARLY ACS trial

BackgroundElderly patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are at high risk for death and recurrent thrombotic events. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of intensive treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in an elderly population, and the relationships between age, timing of administration, and clinical outcomes. MethodsWe used data from high-risk non–ST-segment elevation ACS patients randomized to early eptifibatide vs. delayed provisional use at percutaneous coronary intervention. In multivariable models, we included age×treatment interaction terms to assess whether treatment effect varied by age after adjusting for confounders. ResultsOf 9406 patients, 13.9% were aged <55years; 27.6%, 55–64years; 33.2%, 65–74years; and 25.3%, ≥75years. For each 10-year age increase, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for 96-hour death, myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization, or thrombotic bailout was 1.13 (1.04–1.23) and for 30-day death or MI was 1.13 (1.04–1.22). Increasing age was also associated with greater 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio per 10years: 1.44, 95% CI 1.30–1.60). There was no interaction between age and treatment (p interaction=0.99, 0.54, and 0.87, respectively). Increasing age was associated with more non‐coronary artery bypass grafting-related TIMI major bleeding (adjusted OR and 95% CI per 10years: 1.54 [1.24–1.92]), GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding (1.52 [1.33–1.75]), and transfusion (1.25 [1.07–1.45]). The amount by which TIMI major bleeding was increased with early vs. delayed provisional eptifibatide use was significantly greater with increasing age (p interaction=0.02), but the age×treatment interactions were not significant for GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding or transfusion (p interaction=0.33 and 0.54, respectively). ConclusionIncreasing age was associated with greater risk for ischemic events and more bleeding. Despite higher baseline ischemic risk in older patients, there was no preferential benefit of early vs. delayed provisional eptifibatide use for ischemic outcomes as age increased, but the incremental bleeding risk was amplified.

Complications Associated with Eptifibatide Use during Carotid Artery Stenting (P06.210)

Complications Associated with Eptifibatide Use during Carotid Artery Stenting (P06.210)

Eptifibatide induced profound thrombocytopenia in a patient with pelvic malignancy: A case report

► Eptifibatide is associated with profound thrombocytopenia and thrombosis secondary to a HITT-like mechanism associated with drug-dependant antibodies. ► Caution with eptifibatide use is needed in those pre-disposed to hypercoaguability, particularly those with an underlying malignancy.

Adjunctive use of eptifibatide for complication management during elective neuroendovascular procedures

ObjectiveA rare complication of neuroendovascular procedures is acute thromboembolism. In the setting of intraprocedural or periprocedural embolism, thrombolytics present a potentially useful therapeutic strategy. A series of patients in whom...

Bleeding risk and safety profile related to the use of eptifibatide: a current review

Introduction: Eptifibatide is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor that blocks the final common pathway of platelet aggregation. Its major adverse effect is bleeding. Balancing its safety and efficacy is paramount for its appropriate usage. Areas covered: The development of eptifibatide and its mechanism of action are explored. Clinical trials evaluating its efficacy and safety in a variety of clinical settings, as well as newer dosing regimens, are discussed. Readers will be able to understand the bleeding risks of eptifibatide in specific patient populations. Expert opinion: The risk of bleeding with eptifibatide needs to be weighed against the potential benefits. Understanding which patients are at higher risk of bleeding will help the clinician make appropriate decisions.

Extended-Infusion Eptifibatide to Prevent Stent Thrombosis in a Patient Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery

To report the use of extended-infusion eptifibatide in a patient who had undergone placement of a drug-eluting stent and required repeat intervention of a hip fracture following mechanical failure. An 82-year-old female with an extensive history of coronary disease who had undergone placement of a drug-eluting stent was admitted following continued problems with her surgically repaired right hip. Radiographic imaging of the area revealed mechanical failure of the surgically repaired hip, requiring intervention. Clopidogrel and aspirin therapy was discontinued and intravenous eptifibatide 1 μg/kg/min was initiated prior to surgery; the drugs were then discontinued 4 hours before the procedure. During this admission, the patient received a total of 155 hours of eptifibatide to prevent acute coronary stent thrombosis while awaiting surgical intervention. Postoperatively, the patient experienced anemia and severe thrombocytopenia and required 11 units of packed red blood cells, but displayed no signs of stent thrombosis. Use of eptifibatide in this patient minimized the potential risk for stent thrombosis by reducing the interruption in antiplatelet therapy from 5 days, as is recommended for use with clopidogrel, to 4 hours. While this patient required several transfusions and experienced severe thrombocytopenia postoperatively, she recovered and had no cardiac-related problems. It is unclear whether the use of eptifibatide contributed to these complications, given the chronology of events. Extended-infusion eptifibatide appears to be an option for prevention of stent thrombosis in patients who require an interruption in antiplatelet therapy and are scheduled to undergo major orthopedic procedures. Careful consideration should be given regarding the risks and benefits of extended infusions of eptifibatide, as the potential for significant hemorrhage is a concern. Further research is warranted in this area.