Immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary stand-alone bolus administration of eptifibatide during coronary intervention (ICE) study.

Background: This study evaluated the immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary (i.c.) eptifibatide administration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several studies tested intravenous (i.v.) bolus and continuous administration of eptifibatide during PCI. However, limited data are available regarding giving eptifibatide as i.c. bolus alone during PCI.

Methods: We studied clinical outcomes of 376 patients who received coronary stent(s) and eptifibatide by 3 applications during PCI and were followed up over 24 months. Group A (119 patients) had i.c. eptifibatide bolus only, group B (119 patients) had i.c. bolus and i.v. infusion, and group C (138 patients) had i.v. bolus and infusion. The standard 2 boluses of eptifibatide 180 microg/kg were given either via i.c. or i.v. route, and only groups B and C received i.v. infusion at 2 microcg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for 18 to 24 hours.

Results: There were 256 males and 120 females, with a mean age of 57 +/- 11 years. Among them, 52% were diabetic. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative composite end point of death and myocardial infraction was lower in group A (2.5%) compared with group C (10.8%, odds ratio [OR] 4.3, P = .029) and group B (5.8%, OR 2.6, P = .17). Compared with group A, target vessel revascularization was 3-fold in group C (OR 3.3, P = .001) and 2-fold in group B (OR 2.0, P = .061). Bleeding was significantly higher in group C (OR 5.4, P < .0001) and group B (OR 3.4, P = .007) compared with group A. Rehospitalization was significantly lower in group A (10.9%) compared with group B (16.8%) and group C (28%) (P = .0009).

Conclusion: The i.c.-bolus-alone application of eptifibatide may be safer and superior to the i.v. route, and continuous infusion may not be necessary. Large-scale prospective randomized trials are needed to further validate these findings.