ArticleThe journal of Tehran Heart Center2013
Comparison between Intracoronary Abciximab and Intravenous Eptifibatide Administration during Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
Article in The journal of Tehran Heart Center, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdministration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors is an effective adjunctive treatment strategy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Recent data suggest that an intracoronary administration of these drugs can increase the efficacy of PPCI. This study was done to find any potential difference in terms of efficacy of administering intracoronary Abciximab vs. intravenous Eptifibatide in primary PPCI.
methodsA total of 40 STEMI patients who underwent PPCI within 12 hours of symptom onset were randomized to either an intracoronary Abciximab (0.25 μg/kg) bolus or two boluses of intravenous Eptifibatide (0.180 μg/kg) each 10 minutes. The primary end points were enzymatic infarct size, myocardial reperfusion measured as ST-segment resolution (STR), and post-procedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade flow of the infarct-related artery. The secondary end points were intra-procedural adverse effect (arrhythmia) and no-reflow phenomenon, in-hospital mortality, reinfarction, hemorrhage, and post-procedural global systolic function.
resultsPost-procedural TIMI grade 3 flow was achieved in 95% and 90% of the intracoronary Abciximab and intravenous Eptifibatide groups, respectively (p value = 0.61). The infarct size, as assessed by the area under the curve of creatine phosphokinase-MB in the first 48 hours after PPCI (μmol/L/hr), was similar between the intracoronary Abciximab and intravenous Eptifibatide groups: 6591 (interquartile range [IQR], 3006.0 to 11112.0) versus 7,294 (IQR, 3795.5 to 11803.5); p value = 0.59. Complete STR was achieved in 55% and 45% of the intracoronary Abciximab and intravenous Eptifibatide groups, respectively (p value = 0.87). No deaths, urgent revascularizations, reinfarctions, or TIMI major bleeding events were observed in either group.
conclusionThe intracoronary administration of Abciximab was not superior to the intravenous administration of Eptifibatide in the STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24396362PMC3874372W51416756What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.