ArticleCardiology research2018
Eptifibatide Bolus Dose During Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Cardiology research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjunctive Eptifibatide Administration in ACS Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized Comparison of Bolus-only Versus Standard Therapy.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Eptifibatide bolus dose postductal stenting intervention: A single-center experience.Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEptifibatide is a platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist used for the prevention of cardiac ischemic complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Eptifibatide has been used with bolus dose only or bolus plus infusion in patients undergoing PCI which have shown less complications, but the risk of bleeding has been increased. We aimed to compare the outcome and bleeding rate of bolus dose alone or plus infusion in elective PCI.
methodsIn this quasi-experimental study, we compared the outcome of elective PCI following single bolus dose intracoronary (41 patients) or bolus plus intravenous infusion (19 patients) of eptifibatide. In-hospital and follow-up major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and bleeding rate were recorded and evaluated between groups.
resultsBoth groups were comparable regarding baseline findings. Bolus only compared to bolus plus infusion group had lower in-hospital (19.5% vs. 31.6%) and follow-up MACE (15.4% vs. 17.6%), lower bleeding in-hospital (14.6% vs. 21.1%) and follow-up (2.4% vs. 5.3%) as well as lower mortality rate in hospital (4.9% vs. 15.8%), but higher follow-up mortality (10.3% vs. 0), but the difference was not significant.
conclusionsWe observed no significant difference regarding bleeding or MACE between intracoronary bolus infusion and bolus plus intravenous infusion of eptifibatide. It seems intracoronary bolus infusion of eptifibatide due to use of lower doses is a better choice in elective PCI to prevent post-PCI MACE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.