Journals / Anadolu Kardiyoloji Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4

Primer perkütan koroner girişim uygulanan hastalarda tirofibanın intrakoroner ve intravenöz bolus dozlarının karşılaştırılması

Comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of tirofiban in primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Pages
340–345
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Future prospective trials with higher bolus doses of IC tirofiban should addressed to clarify this issue.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to compare the intravenous bolus dose of tirofiban with intracoronary bolus dose in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with regard to in hospital and six months clinical outcomes and peak cardiac enzyme levels.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: We retrospectively examined 84 ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent primary PCI from March 2006 to February 2007.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Future prospective trials with higher bolus doses of IC tirofiban should addressed to clarify this issue.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the intravenous bolus dose of tirofiban with intracoronary bolus dose in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with regard to in hospital and six months clinical outcomes and peak cardiac enzyme levels. Methods: We retrospectively examined 84 ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent primary PCI from March 2006 to February 2007. All patients received the systemic bolus dose of tirofiban 10 mcg/kg either via intracoronary (IC) or intravenous (IV) route, followed by a 36 hours of IV infusion at 0.15 mcg/kg/min. Thirty six patients in IC group were compared with 48 patients in IV group in terms of peak cardiac enzyme levels, in-hospital and six months major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rates (death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization). Fisher’s exact test, Yates Chi-square, unpaired Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis. Results: There was no difference in cardiovascular risk profile or cardiac history between two groups. At six months the incidence of MACE was 6.25% in IV group and 11.1% in IC group (p=0.45). Peak cardiac phosphokinase (CPK) levels between IV and IC groups were also statistically non significant (2657±2181 U/L in IV group and 2529±1929 U/L in IC group) (p=0.92). Conclusion: Intracoronary bolus application of tirofiban was not associated with reduction in MACE rates compared to intravenous administration in patients with STEMI who underwent primary PCI. Future prospective trials with higher bolus doses of IC tirofiban should addressed to clarify this issue.

Özet

Bu çalışmadaki amacımız primer perkütan koroner girişim (PKG) uygulanan ST elevasyonlu miyokart enfarktüsü hastalarında bir glikoprotein IIb/IIIa reseptör blokeri olan tirofibanın intrakoroner (İK) ve intravenöz (İV) bolus dozlarının klinik sonuçlar ve zirve kardiyak enzim seviyeleri açısından karşılaştırılmaktır. Yöntemler: Merkezimizde Mart 2006 ve Şubat 2007 tarihleri arasında primer PKG uygulanan 84 hasta retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hastalara 10 mcg/kg tirofiban bolus dozu İK veya İV yolla uygulandı ve 36 saat boyunca 0.15 mcg/kg/dk dozundan IV yolla devam edildi. İK gruptaki 36 hasta ve IV gruptaki 48 hasta zirve kardiyak enzim seviyeleri, hastane içindeki ve 6. aydaki majör istenmeyen kardiyak olay (ölüm, miyokardiyal enfarktüs, tekrarlayan revaskülarizasyon) oranları açısından karşılaştırıldı. İstatistiksel değerlendirmede Fisher’s test, Yates Ki-kare, eşleştirilmemiş Student t testi ve Mann-Whitney U testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Kardiyovasküler risk profilleri ya da geçirilmiş kardiyak olaylar açısından iki grup arasında fark yoktu. Altı aylık takipte majör istenmeyen kardiyak olay oranları İV grupta %6.25 ve İK grupta ise %11.1 olarak saptandı (p=0.45). Her iki grupta zirve kardiyak fosfokinaz seviyeleri arasında istatistiksel bir fark saptanmadı (İV grupta 2657±2181 U/L ve İK grupta 2529±1929 U/L) (p=0.92). Sonuç: Primer PKG uygulanan ST elevasyonlu miyokart enfarktüsü hastalarında tirofiban bolus dozunun intrakoroner uygulanması majör istenmeyen kardiyak olay sıklığını intravenöz uygulamaya göre azaltmamıştır. İleride yapılacak ve daha yüksek intrakoroner bolus dozunun kullanıldığı prospektif çalışmalar bu konunun açıklanmasına ışık tutacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖRMEZ, S., DEMİROĞLU, C., GÜLBARAN, M., KARABAY, K. Ö., ÇATAKOĞLU, A. B., ERCİYES, D., ERDİM, R., AYTEKİN, V. (2022). Primer perkütan koroner girişim uygulanan hastalarda tirofibanın intrakoroner ve intravenöz bolus dozlarının karşılaştırılması. Anadolu Kardiyoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4, 340–345. https://ajindex.com/articles/436745

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 2003; 361: 13-20
  2. Zijlstra F, Hoorntje JC, De Boer MJ, Reiffers S, Miedema K, Ottervanger JP, et al. Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1413-9
  3. Antoniucci D, Rodriguez A, Hempel A, Valenti R, Migliorini A, Vigo F, et al. A randomized trial comparing primary infarct artery stenting with or without abciximab in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42: 1879-85
  4. Wöhrle J, Grebe OC, Nusser T, Al-Khayer E, Schaible S, Kochs M, et al. Reduction of major adverse cardiac events with intracoronary compared with intravenous bolus application of abciximab in patients with acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina undergoing coronary angioplasty. Circulation 2003; 107:1840-3
  5. Romagnoli E, Burzotta F, Trani C, Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Giannico F, Crea F. Rationale for intracoronary administration of abciximab. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2007; 23: 57-63
  6. Peerlinck K, De Lepeleire I, Goldberg M, Farrel D, Barrett J, Hand E, et al. MK-383 (L-700, 462), a selective nonpeptide platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonist, is active in man. Circulation 1993; 88: 1512-7
  7. Lee DP, Herity NA, Hiat BL, Fearon WF, Rezaee M, Carter AJ, et al. Adjunctive platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition with tirofiban before primary angioplasty improves angiographic outcomes: Results of the Tırofiban Given in the Emergency Room before Primary Angioplasty (TIGER-PA) Pilot Trial. Circulation 2003; 107: 1497-501
  8. Wu TG, Zhao Q, Huang WG, Wei JR, Chen SW, Zhao J, et al. Effect of intracoronary tirofiban in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. Circ J 2008; 72: 1605-9
  9. TIMI Study Group. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial: Phase I findings. N Eng J Med 1985; 312: 932-6
  10. EPISTENT investigators. Randomised placebo-controlled and balloon angioplasty-controlled trial to assess safety of coronary stenting with use of glycoprotein-IIb/IIIa blockade. Lancet 1998; 352: 87-92
  11. Theroux P, Catella-Lawson F, Charbonnier B, Diodati J, Kouz S, Nasmith J, et al. for the PRISM-PLUS Study Investigators. Inhibition of the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor with tirofiban in unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infar