Comparison of abciximab and eptifibatide on angiographic and clinical outcomes in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for failed fibrinolytic therapy.

Background: Adjunctive administration of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet receptor antagonist (GPA), abciximab, improves outcomes in patients undergoing rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it is unknown if other GPAs provide a similar benefit in this setting.

Objective: We sought to compare angiographic and clinical outcomes of patients receiving abciximab or eptifibatide as an adjunct to rescue PCI.

Methods: In this prospective, nonrandomized study, consecutive patients who underwent rescue PCI and received adjunctive preprocedural GPA comprised the study population. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow, corrected TIMI frame count (CTFC) and myocardial blush grade (MBG) were determined before and immediately after rescue PCI. Residual ST-segment elevation at 90-120 minutes and peak creatine kinase (CK) values for 48 hours after PCI were recorded. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were determined at discharge, 1 and 6 months.

Results: A total of 241 patients were included in the study. 162 patients received abciximab and 79 received eptifibatide. There were no differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics between groups. Post-PCI TIMI flow was similar but post-PCI CTFC was significantly lower (17 +/- 10 vs. 22 +/- 18; p = 0.01) and post-PCI MBG significantly higher (2.8 +/- 0.5 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.6; p = 0.01) in the abciximab group. Patients in the abciximab group had less ST-segment elevation (1.0 +/- 0.9 vs. 1.5 +/- 1.0 mm; p = 0.003) and lower peak CK (2,484 +/- 2,176 vs. 2,650 +/- 2,798 U/L; p = 0.001) after PCI. On multivariate analyses, abciximab administration (OR = 0.50, CI = 0.26, 0.96; p = 0.03), pre-PCI TIMI 3 flow (OR = 0.22, CI = 0.05, 0.99; p = 0.04) and female gender (OR = 0.24, CI = 0.08, 0.66; p = 0.006) were positive and cardiogenic shock (OR = 2.76, CI = 1.16, 6.58; p = 0.02) was a negative predictor of normal epicardial perfusion post PCI. Abciximab administration (OR = 0.46, CI = 0.24, 0.87; p = 0.02) and pre-PCI CTFC < 25 (OR = 0.09, CI = 0.02, 0.31, 0.0001) were positive predictors and cardiogenic shock (OR = 3.96, CI = 1.55, 10.12; p = 0.004) was a negative predictor of normal myocardial perfusion post-PCI as determined by CTFC. Abciximab administration (OR = 0.31, CI = 0.15, 0.63; p = 0.001) and pre-PCI MBG 3 (OR = 0.07, CI = 0.02, 0.23; p < 0.0001) were positive predictors of normal myocardial perfusion post-PCI as determined by MBG. In-hospital, 1- and 6-month clinical events and MACE rates did not differ between groups.

Conclusions: In the setting of rescue PCI, adjunctive administration of abciximab resulted in greater improvement in angiographic and electrical estimates of myocardial perfusion and smaller infarct size compared to eptifibatide. These findings suggest that all GPA may not provide equal benefit in rescue PCI.