Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors Research Articles

Safety and efficacy of cangrelor in endovascular thrombectomy compared with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors.

Cangrelor, an intravenous P2Y12-receptor inhibitor, is a reversible and short-acting antithrombotic medication non-inferior to irreversible glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) like eptifibatide. There are insufficient data to compare the medications in endovascular thrombectomies (EVTs) requiring emergent platelet inhibition. To review our institution's experience with cangrelor in EVT and compares its safety and efficacy against GPIs. A large healthcare system retrospective review identified all patients who had received cangrelor or eptifibatide intraoperatively during EVT between December 2018 and March 2023 for this cohort study. Clinical data were reviewed. Functional status was defined by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at multiple time points. Multivariate regression was performed. Of 1010 EVT patients, 36 cangrelor and 104 eptifibatide patients were selected. There were no differences in baseline function or presentations. Cangrelor was frequently administered for stenting tandem occlusions (n=16, 44.4%), and successful reperfusion occurred in 30 (83.3%) patients. On multivariate analysis, cangrelor was associated with decreased odds of hemorrhagic conversion (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.76, P=0.004) and symptomatic hemorrhage (aOR=0.86, P=0.021). There were no differences in thrombotic re-occlusion. Cangrelor was associated with a lower 24-hour NIHSS score (7.0 vs 12.0, P=0.013) and discharge NIHSS score (3.0 vs 9.0, P=0.004). There were no differences in in-hospital mortality or length of stay. Cangrelor was associated with improved odds of favorable outcome, defined as mRS score 0-2, at discharge (aOR=2.69, P=0.001) and on 90-day follow-up (aOR=2.23, P=0.031). Cangrelor was associated with a decreased risk of hemorrhagic conversion and might lead to favorable functional outcomes for patients during hospitalization in comparison with GPIs. Prospective studies are warranted to investigate its use in EVT.

Safety and effectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: insights from the SPUM-ACS study

Abstract Aims Data on Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) use in real world ACS patients following the introduction of potent P2Y12 inhibitors and newer generation stents are scant. Here, we aimed to assess the utilization, effectiveness, and safety of GPI in a large prospective cohort of contemporary ACS patients. Methods SPUM-ACS is a prospective, multicentre study in which ACS patients between 2009 and 2017 were recruited. The primary endpoint of the present study was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and non-fatal stroke at one year. Any bleeding events, BARC 3-5 bleeding, and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE) comprised the secondary endpoints. Results A total of 4395 ACS patients were included in the analysis. GPI-treated patients had more total coronary artery occlusion (56% vs 35%, p<0.001) and thrombus (60% vs 35%, p<0.001) at angiography. Among the propensity score matched (PSM) population (1992 patients equally split into two groups), GPI-treated patients showed lower MACE risk (PSM adjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.99) but a higher risk of any (PSM adj HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-1.99) and major bleedings (PSM adj HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.09-2.76), resulting in a neutral effect on NACE (PSM adj HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65-1.17). These results remained consistent across all subgroups. When including only patients treated with potent P2Y12, the incidence of MACE was not different between the two groups, (log rank p=0.50 and PSM adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.60-1.48). In the PSM population, GPI use (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.99, p=0.04), TIMI 3 at the end of the procedure (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08-0.30, p<0.001) and potent P2Y12 inhibitor use (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.99, p=0.04) were protective independent predictors of MACE at follow-up, while oral anticoagulation at discharge (4.48, 95% CI 2.10-9.52, p<0.001), multivessel disease (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.09-3.48, p=0.02) and KILLIP class ≥ 2 at admission (HR 1.98, 95% CI 0.99-3.95, p=0.05) were adverse independent predictors. Conclusion In ACS patients undergoing PCI and broadly treated with potent P2Y12 inhibitors, GPI use reduced the risk of MACE at 1 year, while increasing the risk of major bleedings, with a neutral effect on NACE. The routine use of these pharmacological agents should be discouraged, while in selected patients GPI use should be considered following personalized balancing between ischaemic and bleeding risk.Events in PSM populationEvents in PSM population

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with or without bail-out GPI use: a pre-specified subgroup analysis from the BRIGHT-4 trial

BackgroundConflicting results comparing bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in part due to the confounding effect of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI). The aim of the study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion vs heparin with or without bail-out GPI use.MethodsWe conducted a pre-specified subgroup analysis from the BRIGHT-4 trial that randomized 6016 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI to receive either bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion for 2–4 h or heparin monotherapy. GPI use was only reserved as bail-out therapy for procedural thrombotic complications. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3–5 bleeding at 30 days.ResultsA total of 5250 (87.4%) patients received treatment without GPI while 758 (12.6%) received bail-out GPI. Bail-out GPI use was associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome compared to non-GPI use (5.28% vs. 3.41%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13–2.33; P = 0.009) and all-cause death (5.01% vs. 3.12%; aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.20–2.52; P = 0.004) but not in the risk of BARC types 3–5 bleeding (0.53% vs. 0.48%; aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.31–2.66; P = 0.85). Among patients without GPI use, bivalirudin was associated with lower rates of the primary outcome (2.63% vs. 4.21%; aHR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39–0.77; P = 0.0005), all-cause death (2.52% vs. 3.74%; aHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41–0.83; P = 0.003), and BARC types 3–5 bleeding (0.15% vs. 0.81%; aHR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06–0.57; P = 0.003) compared with heparin. However, among patients requiring bail-out GPI, there were no significant differences observed in the rates of the primary outcome (5.76% vs. 4.87%; aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.36–1.66; P = 0.50; Pinteraction = 0.07) or its individual components between bivalirudin and heparin groups.ConclusionsBivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion was associated with significantly reduced 30-day composite rate of all-cause death or BARC types 3–5 bleeding compared with heparin monotherapy in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI without GPI use. However, these benefits might be less pronounced in patients requiring bail-out GPI due to thrombotic complications during primary PCI.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03822975.

Current and Future Roles of Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa Inhibitors in Primary Angioplasty for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Acute myocardial infarction still represents the major cause of mortality in high-income countries. Therefore, considerable efforts have been focused on the treatment of myocardial infarctions in the acute and long-term phase, with special attention being paid to reperfusion strategies and adjunctive antithrombotic therapies. In fact, despite the successful mechanical recanalization of the epicardial conduit, a substantial percentage of patients still experience poor myocardial reperfusion or acute/subacute in-stent thrombosis. Due the delayed onset of action of currently available oral antiplatelet therapies, glycoprotein (GP) IIb-IIIa inhibitors could be expected to improve clinical outcomes, especially when administrated in the early phase of the infarction, due to the larger platelet composition of fresh thrombi, the dynamic nature of early thrombi, and the larger amount of viable myocardium existing in the early, as compared to a delayed, phase. Considerable evidence has accumulated regarding the benefits from GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors on mortality, especially among high-risk patients and when administered as an upstream strategy. Therefore, based on currently available data, GP IIb-IIIa inhibitors can be considered when the drug can be administered within the first 3 h of symptom onset and among high-risk patients (e.g., those with advanced Killip class or an anterior myocardial infarction). Even though it is not universally accepted, in our opinion, this strategy should be implemented in a pre-hospital setting (in an ambulance) or as soon as possible when arriving at the hospital (at the Emergency Room or Coronary Care Unit, irrespective of whether they are in spoke or hub hospitals). A new, second-generation GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor (zalunfiban) appears to be highly suitable as a pre-hospital pharmacological facilitation strategy at the time of first medical contact due to its favourable features, including its simple subcutaneous administration, rapid onset of action (15 min), and limited time of action (with a half-life of ~1 h), which is likely to minimize the risk of bleeding. The ongoing CELEBRATE trial, including 2499 STEMI patients, may potentially provide compelling data to support the upstream treatment of STEMI patients undergoing mechanical reperfusion. In fact, although the current therapeutic target of increased rates of timely reperfusion has been achieved, the future goal in myocardial infarction treatment should be to achieve the most rapid reperfusion prior to primary percutaneous coronary intervention, thus further minimizing myocardial damage, or, in some cases, even preventing it completely, and improving survival.

A dual-center analysis of conservative versus liberal glycoprotein IIb–IIIa antagonist strategies in the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction

While the efficacy of GpIIb–IIIa-inhibitors during primary PCI (pPCI) for ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) has previously been demonstrated, its ongoing role and safety in combination with newer P2Y12-inhibitors is unclear. We therefore sought to compare outcomes between two centers with divergent approaches to the use of GpIIbIIIa antagonists in pPCI. We performed a retrospective chart review of all-comer STEMI patients treated with pPCI at two high-volume Montreal academic tertiary care centers. One center tended to use GpIIb–IIIa-inhibitors up-front in a large proportion of patients (liberal strategy) and the other preferring a bail-out approach (conservative strategy). Baseline patient characteristics and procedural data were compared between the two groups. The main efficacy outcome was rate of no-reflow/slow-reflow and the main safety outcome was BARC ≥ 2 bleeding events. A total of 459 patients were included, of whom 167 (36.5%) were exposed to a GpIIb–IIIa-antagonist. There was a significant overall difference in use of GpIIb–IIIa-antagonist between the two centers (60.5% vs. 16.1%, p < 0.01). Rate of no-reflow/slow-reflow was similar between groups (2.6% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.22). In-hospital rates of unplanned revascularization, stroke and death were also not different between groups. Use of a liberal GpIIb-–IIIa-antagonist strategy was however associated with a higher risk of bleeding (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.57–6.37, p < 0.01), which persisted after adjustment for covariables (adjusted OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.40–5.81, p < 0.01). In this contemporary retrospective cohort, a conservative, bail-out only GpIIb-–IIIa-antagonist strategy was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding without any signal for an increase in no-reflow/slow-reflow or ischemic clinical events.

Safety and effectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: insights from the SPUM-ACS study.

Data on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) use in real-world acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients following the introduction of potent P2Y12 inhibitors and newer-generation stents are scant. Here, we aimed to assess the utilization, effectiveness, and safety of GPI in a large prospective multicentre cohort of contemporary ACS patients. SPUM-ACS prospectively recruited patients presenting with ACS between 2009 and 2017. The primary endpoint of the present study was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke at 1 year. Secondary endpoints were defined as any bleeding events, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5 bleeding, and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE). A total of 4395 ACS patients were included in the analysis. GPI-treated patients had more total coronary artery occlusion (56%vs. 35%, P<0.001) and thrombus (60%vs. 35%, P<0.001) at angiography. Among the propensity score-matched (PSM) population (1992 patients equally split into two groups), GPI-treated patients showed lower risk of MACE [PSM adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.99], but a higher risk of any (PSM adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-1.99) and major bleedings (PSM adjusted HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.09-2.76), resulting in a neutral effect on NACE (PSM adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65-1.17). These results remained consistent across all subgroups. In patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and receiving potent P2Y12 inhibitors, we observed a reduced risk of MACE and an increased risk of major bleedings at 1 year in patients treated with GPI. Although the routine use of GPI is currently not recommended, they might be considered in selected patients following a personalized balancing between ischaemic and bleeding risks.

Glycoprotein inhibitors as a first line rescue treatment after unsuccessful recanalization of endovascular thrombectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is a major cause of stroke with a high rate of re-occlusion following mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Among the available rescue options, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) have shown promise as a potential therapeutic strategy. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine studies exploring the use of glycoprotein inhibitors as a first-line treatment for refractory occlusion or high-grade stenosis following EVT in the setting of ICAD. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Studies using GPI as the first-line rescue treatment (GPI-rt) after failed thrombectomy or in the setting with high-grade stenosis (>50%) were included. The primary outcome of interest was good clinical outcomes (defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 90 days). Secondary outcomes of interest were successful recanalization (TICI 2b-3), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and mortality by 90 days. Our study processed 2111 articles, which yielded eight relevant studies for review, four single and four double arm. These studies comprised 763 patients, divided into GPI-rt (535 patients) and non-GPI-rt (228 patients) cohorts. The GPI-rt group had higher rates of mRS ≤ 2 at 90 days (58.5% vs 38.9%, p = 0.002) and lower mortality rates (7.8% vs 17.5%, p = 0.04) compared to the non-GPI-rt cohort. mTICI 2b-3 rates and rates of sICH were not significantly different between the cohorts. First line GPI-rt demonstrates significant clinical benefit and significantly lower mortality without a rise in rates of sICH. GPI are a potential first line rescue treatment of ICAD.

Derivation and validation of the incomplete ST-segment resolution score and its usefulness for treatment with glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors.

Derivation and validation of the incomplete ST-segment resolution score and its usefulness for treatment with glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors.

Current use of antiplatelet therapy in the management of acute myocardial infarction: overview of the FRENCHIE national registry

Abstract Background There are many options for antiplatelet therapy (APT) at various stages in the management of acute myocardial infarction (MI) but few contemporary data regarding use in routine clinical practice in unselected patients. Purpose to describe the contemporary use of APT treatments in unselected MI patients. Methods FRENCHIE (FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation) is a multicenter observational study (38 centers in France) consecutively enrolling patients with spontaneous MI whose symptoms were &amp;lt; 48 hours. Exclusion criteria were age &amp;lt; 18 years, no health coverage, unstable angina and procedure-related MI. Results Between September 2019 and December 2020, 10190 patients with MI were enrolled. Complete data on APT use were available for 9842 patients. Of these, 54.5% had ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 45.5% non-STEMI (NSTEMI). During the first 24 hours, APT use for STEMI and NSTEMI patients, was as follows, respectively: acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 95.1% and 88.8%, clopidogrel 12.4% and 17.7%, ticagrelor 79.5% and 55.0%, prasugrel 4.8% and 3.6%, GPIIb-IIIa inhibitors 23.8% and 6.5%, Cangrelor 1.1% and 0.8%. Among STEMI patients, 3.2% had undergone thrombolysis, 92.2% primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) and 4.5% did not have reperfusion during acute phase management. The use of ASA was similar regardless of the initial reperfusion strategy, but that of P2Y12 inhibitors (P2Y12i) was different. Clopidogrel was mainly used in case of thrombolysis, 69.6% of cases, while ticagrelor was mainly used in case of pPCI or medical treatment alone, respectively in 83.9% and 59.7% of cases. GPIIb-IIIa inhibitors were used in 9.3%, 26.2% and 11.4% in patients who had undergone thrombolysis, pCI and medical treatment respectively. At hospital discharge, APT use was as follows, respectively for STEMI and NSTEMI patients: ASA 94.6% and 91.2%, clopidogrel 14.7% and 21.8%, ticagrelor 72.6% and 54.9%, prasugrel 6.9% and 5.7%. The first P2Y12i administered was different from that retained at discharge in 15.4% of STEMI and 12.5% of NSTEMI patients. The most common scenario was switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in 64.2% of STEMI patients and 57.2% of NSTEMI patients. No P2Y12i was prescribed at discharge in 3.6% of STEMI patients and 11.3% of NSTEMI patients. Conclusion In contemporary practice in France, P2Y12i use was different according to MI type and to initial reperfusion strategy. GPIIb-IIIa inhibitors were used in more than a quarter of STEMI patients with pPCI. Switching between P2Y12i occurred in 1/8 of patients before discharge and deserves further investigation.

Impact of age on pre-procedural TIMI flow in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Advanced age is a major determinant of impaired prognosis among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the mechanisms associated with suboptimal reperfusion and enhanced complications are still largely undefined. The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of age on the angiographic findings and the procedural results of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in patients with STEMI. A consecutive cohort of patients admitted for STEMI treated with pPCI were included. Infarct-related artery (IRA) patency was defined for preprocedural TIMI flow 3. We included 520 patients, divided according to age tertiles (<61; 61-72; ≥73). Elderly patients were more often females, with hypertension, renal failure, prior myocardial infarction or PCI, with lower rates of smoking history, haemoglobin, leukocytes and cholesterol (P < 0.001), lower ejection fraction (P = 0.02), higher use of renin angiotensin system inhibitors, statins, ASA, calcium antagonists, diuretics and beta blockers. At angiography, for the IRA, percentage of thrombus (P = 0.02) and stenosis (P = 0.01), direct stenting (P = 0.02) and glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors (P = 0.04) inversely related with age, but for higher restenosis (P = 0.04). IRA patency was more common in patients aged ≥73 years (27.9% vs. 32.3% vs. 41.1%, P = 0.01). The impact of age on preprocedural TIMI flow was confirmed at multivariate analysis [adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 0.68 (0.47-0.98), P = 0.04]. The present study shows that among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, more advanced age represents an independent predictor of preprocedural IRA patency. Future studies will define the implications on procedural results and long-term prognosis.

One-Year Safety and Effectiveness of Bivalirudin versus Heparin in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Bivalirudin reduces ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but the safety and efficacy for such individuals are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of bivalirudin in patients undergoing elective PCI. We examined 957 patients with bivalirudin anticoagulation and 1713 patients with unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulation with and without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI). The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding. The secondary endpoints were bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). In one year of follow-up, 307 (11.5%) NACEs, 72 (2.7%) bleedings, and 249 (9.3%) MACCEs occurred. Statistically, patients with bivalirudin anticoagulation had less NACE [hazard ratio (HR): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-0.96, p = 0.021] and bleeding (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34-0.99, p = 0.045) but not less MACCE, than did those with UFH anticoagulation. Furthermore, the risk of bleeding in the bivalirudin group was lower than in the UFH with GPI group (p = 0.001) but not lower than in the group of UFH without GPI (p = 0.197). In patients who undergo elective PCI, the use of bivalirudin significantly decreased the risk of NACE and bleeding without increasing the risk of MACCE; the reduction of bleeding risk with bivalirudin was mainly attributed to the presence of GPIs in the UFH group.

Use of Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative

Antiplatelet therapies with thromboxane inhibitors and adenosine 5'-diphosphate antagonists have been widely used following carotid artery stenting (CAS). However, these therapies may not apply to patients who are intolerant or present acutely. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) are a proposed alternative therapy in these patients; however, their use has been limited due to concerns of increased risk for intracranial bleeding. Thus, this study aims to assess the safety profile of GPI in patients undergoing CAS. All patients undergoing CAS in the Society of Vascular Surgery - Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2012 to 2021 was included and grouped into GPI versus non-GPI therapy (control). The primary outcome was in-hospital stroke or death, and secondary outcomes included in-hospital stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), death, myocardial infarction, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)/seizure. Patients were stratified by surgical approach (Transcarotid artery revascularization using flow reversal (TCAR) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting), and stepwise backward logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate major primary and secondary outcomes. A total of 50,628 patients underwent carotid revascularization. Of these, 4.4% of the patients received GPI. Mean age was similar between control versus GPI (71.35(9.67) vs. 71.36(10.20) years). Compared to the control group, patients who receive GPI are less likely to be on optimal medical therapy, including aspirin (83.0% vs. 88.1%), P2Y12 inhibitor (73.0% vs. 82.7%), and statin (82.3% vs. 86.0%) (All P<0.05). In addition, patients in the GPI group were more likely to undergo TCAR for carotid revascularization (52.2% vs. 48.4%) for emergent/urgent (29.4% vs. 16.8%) and symptomatic indications (55.5% vs. 49.7%) (All P<0.001). After stratifying by surgical approach, if patients underwent TFCAS and received a GPI, they were at increased odds of developing stroke/death (1.77(1.25-2.51)), death (odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 1.67(1.07-2.61)), stroke/TIA (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 1.65(1.09-2.51)), and ICH/seizure (OR (95% CI): 2.13(1.23-3.68)) (All P<0.05). No difference was seen in outcomes between the 2 groups if undergoing TCAR. Patients who receive GPI were more likely to be symptomatic at presentation and less likely to be medically optimized before their carotid revascularization. Transfemoral access in patients receiving GPI was associated with increased odds of morbidity and mortality. However, this was not observed if undergoing TCAR. TCAR can be considered for its overall favorable results in high-risk patients who are not medically optimized.

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

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.

Antithrombotic regimen in emergent carotid stenting for acute ischemic stroke due to tandem occlusion: a meta-analysis of aggregate data

BackgroundThe periprocedural antithrombotic regimen might affect the risk-benefit profile of emergent carotid artery stenting (eCAS) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to tandem lesions, especially after intravenous thrombolysis....

Thrombus containing lesions strategies during primary percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from ORPKI National Registry

In the era of potent P2Y12 inhibitors, according to current guidelines, treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) should be limited to bail-out and/or highly thrombotic situations. Similarly, the recommendation for aspiration thrombectomy (AT) is downgraded to very selective use. We examine the prevalence, and predictors of GPI and AT use in STEMI patients referred to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data on 116,873 consecutive STEMI patients referred to primary PCI in Poland between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed. GPIs were administered in 29.3%, AT was used in 11.6%, and combined treatment with both in 6.1%. There was a mild trend toward a decrease in GPI and AT usage during the analyzed years. On the contrary, there was a rapid growth of the ticagrelor/prasugrel usage rate from 6.5 to 48.1%. Occluded infarct-related artery at baseline and no-reflow during PCI were the strongest predictors of GPI administration (OR 2.3; 95% CI 2.22–2.38 and OR 3.47; 95% CI 3.13–3.84, respectively) and combined usage of GPI and AT (OR 4.4; 95% CI 4.08–4.8 and OR 3.49; 95% CI 3.08–3.95 respectively) in a multivariate logistic regression model. Similarly, the administration of ticagrelor/prasugrel was an independent predictor of both adjunctive treatment strategies. In STEMI patients in Poland, GPIs are selectively used in one in four patients during primary PCI, and the combined usage of GPI and AT is marginal. Despite the rapid growth in potent P2Y12 inhibitors usage in recent years, GPIs are selectively used at a stable rate during PCI in highly thrombotic lesions.

Prepercutaneous coronary intervention Zalunfiban dose-response relationship to target vessel blood flow at initial angiogram in st-elevation myocardial infarction – A post hoc analysis of the cel-02 phase IIa study

Zalunfiban (RUC-4) is a novel, subcutaneously administered glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) designed for prehospital treatment to initiate reperfusion in the infarct-related artery (IRA) before primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Since GPIs have been reported to rapidly reperfuse IRAs, we assessed whether there was a dose-dependent relationship between zalunfiban treatment and angiographic reperfusion indices and thrombus grade of the IRA at initial angiogram in patients with STEMI. This was a post hoc analysis from the open-label Phase IIa study that investigated the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of three doses of zalunfiban - 0.075, 0.090 and 0.110 mg/kg - in STEMI patients. This analysis explored dose-dependent associations between zalunfiban and three angiographic indices of the IRA, namely coronary and myocardial blood flow and thrombus burden. Zalunfiban was administered in the cardiac catheterization laboratory prior to vascular access, ∼10 to 15 minutes before the initial angiogram. All angiographic data were analyzed by a blinded, independent, core laboratory. Twentyfour out of 27 STEMI patients were evaluable for angiographic analysis (0.075 mg/kg [n=7], 0.090 mg/kg [n=9], and 0.110 mg/kg [n=8]). TIMI flow grade 2 or 3 was seen in 1/7 patients receiving zalunfiban at 0.075 mg/kg, in 6/9 patients receiving 0.090 mg/kg, and in 7/8 patients receiving 0.110 mg/kg (ptrend=0.004). A similar trend was observed based on TIMI flow grade 3. Myocardial perfusion was also related to zalunfiban dose (ptrend=0.005) as reflected by more frequent TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3. Consistent with the dose-dependent trends in greater coronary and myocardial perfusion, TIMI thrombus ≥4 grade was inversely related to zalunfiban dose (ptrend=0.02). This post hoc analysis found that higher doses of zalunfiban administered in the cardiac catheterization lab prior to vascular access were associated with greater coronary and myocardial perfusion, and lower thrombus burden at initial angiogram in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Abstract 13639: Bivalirudin versus Heparin in Patients With STEMI Undergoing PCI: Individual-Patient-Data Pooled Analysis of the 6 Major Randomized Trials

Background: Given differences in prior trial designs, the treatment tradeoffs between bivalirudin and heparin in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI remain uncertain. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to provide conclusive answers or assess subgroups. Methods: We performed an individual-patient-data pooled analysis from all 6 large (n&gt;1000) RCTs of bivalirudin vs heparin in STEMI pts undergoing PCI (BRIGHT, EUROMAX, HEAT-PPCI, HORIZONS-AMI, MATRIX, and VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART). The primary efficacy outcome was the 30-day rate of all-cause mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed according to planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI), and administration of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Results: A total of 15,254 patients with STEMI undergoing PCI were included (7,306 randomized to bivalirudin and 7,948 to heparin [43.6% with planned GPI use]). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between bivalirudin vs heparin (aHR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.01); 30-day cardiac mortality was reduced with bivalirudin (aHR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.57, 0.91). There was a higher risk of 30-day MI (aHR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.64) and stent thrombosis (aHR: 1.42; 95 % CI: 1.05, 1.91) but lower risk of serious bleeding (aHR: 0.57 (0.47, 0.68) with bivalirudin vs heparin. At 1 year, net adverse clinical events were reduced with bivalirudin (aHR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.93) (Table). All-cause mortality was reduced with bivalirudin when a post-PCI infusion was used. A high-dose post-PCI infusion mitigated the 30-day MI and ST risks, irrespective of planned GPI use with heparin. Conclusions: In patients with STEMI undergoing PCI, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin did not reduce all-cause mortality. Cardiac mortality and serious bleeding were reduced with bivalirudin at the cost of increased rates of MI and ST. Full analyses will be presented at AHA 2022.

Association Between Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibition and In-Hospital Outcomes in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Treated with Coronary Thrombus Aspiration: Findings from the CCC-ACS Project.

Thrombus aspiration in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with high thrombus burden did not improve clinical outcomes. The clinical efficacy of the bailout use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in this clinical scenario remains unknown. We assessed associations between GPI use and in-hospital major bleeds, ischemic events, and mortality among STEMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and thrombus aspiration in a nationwide acute coronary syndrome registry (the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome project). A total of 5896 STEMI patients who received thrombus aspiration were identified, among which 56.3% received GPI therapy. In a 1-to-1 propensity-score-matched cohort, compared with STEMI patients not treated with GPI, GPI use was associated with a 69% increase in major in-hospital bleeds, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.69, a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.08 to 2.65, and a nonsignificant reduction in ischemic events (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.06), as well as a neutral effect on mortality (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.58). However, among patients aged < 60years, GPI use was associated with a reduction in ischemic events (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.98), and no significant increase in major bleeds was observed. In a nationwide registry, routine use of GPI following thrombus aspiration was not associated with reduced in-hospital ischemic events and mortality but at the cost of increased major bleeding. However, for patients aged < 60years, there may be a potential net benefit.

Contemporary approach to thrombus containing lesions during primary percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the ORPKI National Registry in Poland)

Abstract Background In the era of potent P2Y12 inhibitors, according to current guidelines on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) should be limited to selected bail-out or highly thrombotic situations. Similarly, aspiration thrombectomy (AT) is downgraded in current guidelines for very selective but not routine usage. Both recommendations make the treatment of thrombus containing lesions somewhat defensive, underlining the need for an individualized approach to STEMI patients. However, data concerning current clinical practice of such approach are limited. Purpose We examined the prevalence, procedural characteristics, and predictors of GPI administration and AT usage in all-comers contemporary STEMI patients referred to primary PCI in Poland. Methods We focused on 116,873 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI in Poland between 2015 and 2020. Results GPIs were administered in 29.3% of patients and AT was used in 11.6%, with combined treatment with GPI and AT in 6.1% of patients. There was a slight trend towards a decrease in GPI and AT usage during the analyzed years. On the opposite, there was a rapid growth of the ticagrelor/prasugrel usage rate from 6.5% in 2015 to 48.1% in 2020 (Figure 1). Patients with periprocedural GPI administration and combined strategy with GPI and AT were younger, more often men, with history of smoking and presented with cardiogenic shock on admission. They were less likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease and previous stroke. Occluded infarct-related artery in baseline angiography and no-reflow during PCI were the strongest independent predictors of GPI administration and combined usage of GPI and AT in a multivariate logistic regression model. Similarly, administration of ticagrelor/prasugrel was an independent predictor of both adjunctive treatment strategies (see table for details). Conclusions Despite the rapid growth of potent P2Y12 inhibitors usage in Poland in recent years, GPI and AT are selectively used at a stable level during primary PCI in highly thrombotic STEMI lesions. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: The Portuguese Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes

Introduction and objectivesCardiogenic shock (CS) complicates 5–10% of cases of myocardial infarction (MI). Whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) are beneficial in these patients is controversial. Our aim is to assess the prognostic impact of GPI use on in-hospital mortality and outcomes in patients with MI and CS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). MethodsBetween October 2010 and December 2019, 27578 acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients were included in the multicenter Portuguese Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes. Of these, 357 with an MI complicated by CS were included in the analysis and grouped based on whether they received GPI therapy (with GPI, n=107 and without GPI, n=250). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included successful PCI and in-hospital reinfarction and major bleeding. ResultsDemographics and cardiovascular risk factors did not differ between groups. ST-elevation MI patients were more likely to receive GPIs (95% vs. 83%, p=0.002). In-hospital mortality was similar between groups (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.96–3.37). Only age and the use of inotropes or intra-aortic balloon pump were predictors of mortality. Also, no differences between groups were noted for successful PCI (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.62–4.06), reinfarction (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.15–3.90), or major bleeding (OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.75–3.74). ConclusionThe use of GPIs in the context of MI with CS did not significantly impact in-hospital outcomes.