J Thromb Thrombolysis 2004 Apr;17(2):127-31
Department of Invasive Cardiology, Medical Academy Bialystok, M. Sklodowskiej 24a, 15-276 Bialystok, Poland.
Background: Intravenous glycoprotein GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists administered to patients with acute coronary syndromes limit platelet-dependent thrombus formation and vasoconstriction and lower the complication rate of PCI. The efficacy of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors critically depends on appropriate suppression of platelet aggregation. A growing body of evidence indicates that regimen of tirofiban used in several recent trials may be suboptimal. We investigated if a novel regimen of dosage of tirofiban administered to patients with acute myocardial infarction with ST elevation (STEMI) before primary angioplasty is safe, feasible and whether such treatment improves coronary flow in infarct-related artery.
Methods: It was an open-label, non-randomized, prospective observational study. 253 consecutive patients with STEMI, qualified to PCI were included. 104 of patients (group 1) received heparin plus tirofiban at a novel regimen (10 microg/kg bolus, followed by 0.4 microg/kg/min for 30 min and then 0.1 microg/kg/min for 12-24 hours) and the remaining 149 of the patients (group 2) received a standard dose of heparin prior to PCI. Bleeding complications were recorded. The primary end point of the study was combined TIMI 1 + 2 + 3 grade flow at the time of first contrast medium injection during angiography for primary PCI.
Results: Heparin was administered 50.3 +/- 58.1 minutes (group 1) or 62.3 +/- 67.3 minutes (group 2) ( p = 0.205). Tirofiban was administered for an average of 14.5 +/- 14.4 minutes before TIMI assessment (group 1). In patients treated with heparin + tirofiban the rate of combined TIMI 1 + 2 + 3 coronary flow was higher (38.4% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.020) as compared to patients treated with heparin alone. The difference in the rate of TIMI > or = 2 coronary blood flow between the groups 1 and 2 (24.0% vs. 20.1%) has not reached statistical significance ( p = 0.459). At the same time the significant difference in the rate of TIMI 1 coronary blood flow between the groups 1 and 2 was noted (14.4 vs. 4.7%, p = 0.007). In hospital mortality in the groups 1 and 2 was similar (5.3 vs. 4.8%, p = 0.838). Significant difference was noted between the groups 1 and 2 with regard to minor bleeding complications (17.3 vs. 8.7%, p = 0.041).
Conclusion: In patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction the novel regimen of tirofiban is well tolerated and feasible, and is associated with improvement in coronary blood flow in the infarct related artery. Larger studies assessing the effects of tirofiban on clinical outcomes of patients with AMI undergoing primary angioplasty seem worthwhile.