Trial reportCardiovascular journal of Africa
Clinical outcome of intracoronary versus intravenous high-dose bolus administration of tirofiban in diabetic patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
Trial report in Cardiovascular journal of Africa. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Examining the Efficacy, Safety, and Future Prospects of Tirofiban in Managing Myocardial Infarction among Diabetic Patients.Current diabetes reviews · 2024Review
- Article
- Application of tirofiban in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with diabetes and undergoing emergency interventional therapy.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious trials remain inconsistent regarding the advantages and hazards related to intracoronary (IC) compared with intravenous (IV) administration of thrombolytics. We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IC versus IV tirofiban administration in diabetic patients (DM) with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
methodsThis trial included 95 patients who were randomised to high-dose bolus plus a maintenance dose of tirofiban administered either IV or IC. The groups were compared for the incidence of composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. Levels of cardiac markers were recorded pre- and post-intervention for myocardial perfusion.
resultsThe MACE were not different between the groups, but post-procedure myocardial blush grade (MBG) 3 and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow were significant in the IC group (p = 0.45, 0.21, respectively), favouring the IC strategy. Peak values of both creatine kinase-muscle/brain (CK-MB) and high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) were significantly lower in the IC group (155.68 ± 121, 4291 ± 334 ng/dl) versus the IV group (192.4 ± 86, 5342 ± 286 ng/dl) (p = 0.021, p = 0.035, respectively). The peak value was significantly lower in the IC group than the IV group in terms of ST-segment resolution and 30-day left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p = 0.016 and 0.023, respectively).
conclusionThirty days post PCI, IC tirofiban was more efficient in ameliorating blood flow in the coronary arteries and myocardial tissue perfusion in DM patients after STEMI despite bleeding events, and MACE rates showed no significant difference between the groups. The IC group showed better improvement in LVEF.
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.