ArticleARYA atherosclerosis2019
The effect of intracoronary versus intralesional injection of eptifibatide on myocardial perfusion outcomes during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; A randomized clinical trial study.
Article in ARYA atherosclerosis, 2019. 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.
- Eptifibatide, an Older Therapeutic Peptide with New Indications: From Clinical Pharmacology to Everyday Clinical Practice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
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
backgroundPrevious studies have proved that intracoronary injection of eptifibatide is safe and more effective in infarct size reduction and clinical outcomes than intravenously injection in the patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study aimed to compare the effect of localized and intracoronary injection of eptifibatide on myocardial perfusion improvement and its outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a randomized clinical trial study of 60 patients presented with thrombotic AMI. The patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and were randomly divided into two equal number groups. The first group received two bolus doses of 180 μg/kg eptifibatide through guiding catheter. The second group received the same bolus doses through export aspiration catheter into the coronary lesion directly. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow, myocardial blush grade (MBG), and no-reflow phenomenon were primary end points. Secondary end points were pre- and postprocedure cardiac arrhythmia, in-hospital mortality, adverse effects, reinfection, pre-discharge ventricular systolic function, and re-hospitalization and mortality after 6 month of follow up.
resultsThe mean ages of group I and group II were 58.3 ± 1.8 and 57.0 ±2.0 years, respectively, and most of patient were men (90% in group I and 80% in group II). Postprocedural TIMI flow grade 3 was achieved in 60.0% and 76.7% of the intracoronary and intralesional groups, respectively (P = 0.307). Postprocedural MBG grade 3 was achieved in 53.3% and 70.0% in intracoronary and intralesional groups, respectively (P = 0.479). There was no significant difference between the groups in no-reflow assessment. Moreover, no significant difference was seen between the two groups in secondary end-point analysis.
conclusionBoth methods of intracoronary and intralesional eptifibatide administration during primary PCI in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were safe and similar in myocardial perfusion outcomes.
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.