Cargando…

Intralesional versus intracoronary administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) have been regarded as an adjuvant regimen to deal with no-reflow. However, whether intralesional (IL) administration of GPIs improves myocardial reperfusion without increasing bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Binjie, Liu, Zhen, Yin, Hongshan, Wang, Tao, Chen, Tao, Yang, Sen, Jiang, Zhian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5738012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28984776
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008223
_version_ 1783287612484616192
author Sun, Binjie
Liu, Zhen
Yin, Hongshan
Wang, Tao
Chen, Tao
Yang, Sen
Jiang, Zhian
author_facet Sun, Binjie
Liu, Zhen
Yin, Hongshan
Wang, Tao
Chen, Tao
Yang, Sen
Jiang, Zhian
author_sort Sun, Binjie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) have been regarded as an adjuvant regimen to deal with no-reflow. However, whether intralesional (IL) administration of GPIs improves myocardial reperfusion without increasing bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with intracoronary (IC) administration has not been well addressed. Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL versus IC administration of GPIs for patients with ACS during percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts from January 2007 to May 2017. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 3 flow, corrected TIMI frame count (CTFC), and complete ST-segment resolution (>70%) were selected as the primary outcomes. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were the secondary outcome, and major bleeding complications were the safety outcome. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with IC, IL obtained better results in terms of TIMI grade 3 flow [odds ratio (OR) 2.29; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.31–4.01; P = .004], CTFC [weighted mean difference (WMD) -4.63; 95% CI -8.82 to -0.43; P = .03], and complete ST-segment resolution (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.12–2.14; P = .008). There was a trend toward decreased MACE in the IL administration groups, which was not of statistical significance (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.30–1.31; P = .22). No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of in-hospital major bleeding events (OR 2.52; 95% CI .66 to 9.62; P = .18). CONCLUSION: IL administration yielded favorable outcomes in terms of myocardial tissue reperfusion as evidenced by the improved TIMI flow grade, CTFC, complete ST-segment resolution, and decreased MACE without increasing in-hospital major bleeding events. The IL administration of GPIs can be recommended as the preferred regimen to guard against no-reflow.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5738012
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57380122018-01-02 Intralesional versus intracoronary administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Sun, Binjie Liu, Zhen Yin, Hongshan Wang, Tao Chen, Tao Yang, Sen Jiang, Zhian Medicine (Baltimore) 3400 BACKGROUND: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) have been regarded as an adjuvant regimen to deal with no-reflow. However, whether intralesional (IL) administration of GPIs improves myocardial reperfusion without increasing bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with intracoronary (IC) administration has not been well addressed. Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL versus IC administration of GPIs for patients with ACS during percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts from January 2007 to May 2017. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 3 flow, corrected TIMI frame count (CTFC), and complete ST-segment resolution (>70%) were selected as the primary outcomes. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were the secondary outcome, and major bleeding complications were the safety outcome. Data analysis was conducted using the Review Manager 5.3 software. RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with IC, IL obtained better results in terms of TIMI grade 3 flow [odds ratio (OR) 2.29; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.31–4.01; P = .004], CTFC [weighted mean difference (WMD) -4.63; 95% CI -8.82 to -0.43; P = .03], and complete ST-segment resolution (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.12–2.14; P = .008). There was a trend toward decreased MACE in the IL administration groups, which was not of statistical significance (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.30–1.31; P = .22). No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of in-hospital major bleeding events (OR 2.52; 95% CI .66 to 9.62; P = .18). CONCLUSION: IL administration yielded favorable outcomes in terms of myocardial tissue reperfusion as evidenced by the improved TIMI flow grade, CTFC, complete ST-segment resolution, and decreased MACE without increasing in-hospital major bleeding events. The IL administration of GPIs can be recommended as the preferred regimen to guard against no-reflow. Wolters Kluwer Health 2017-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5738012/ /pubmed/28984776 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008223 Text en Copyright © 2017 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even for commercial purposes, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
spellingShingle 3400
Sun, Binjie
Liu, Zhen
Yin, Hongshan
Wang, Tao
Chen, Tao
Yang, Sen
Jiang, Zhian
Intralesional versus intracoronary administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Intralesional versus intracoronary administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Intralesional versus intracoronary administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Intralesional versus intracoronary administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Intralesional versus intracoronary administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short Intralesional versus intracoronary administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort intralesional versus intracoronary administration of glycoprotein iib/iiia inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic 3400
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5738012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28984776
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008223
work_keys_str_mv AT sunbinjie intralesionalversusintracoronaryadministrationofglycoproteiniibiiiainhibitorsduringpercutaneouscoronaryinterventioninpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT liuzhen intralesionalversusintracoronaryadministrationofglycoproteiniibiiiainhibitorsduringpercutaneouscoronaryinterventioninpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT yinhongshan intralesionalversusintracoronaryadministrationofglycoproteiniibiiiainhibitorsduringpercutaneouscoronaryinterventioninpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT wangtao intralesionalversusintracoronaryadministrationofglycoproteiniibiiiainhibitorsduringpercutaneouscoronaryinterventioninpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT chentao intralesionalversusintracoronaryadministrationofglycoproteiniibiiiainhibitorsduringpercutaneouscoronaryinterventioninpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT yangsen intralesionalversusintracoronaryadministrationofglycoproteiniibiiiainhibitorsduringpercutaneouscoronaryinterventioninpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT jiangzhian intralesionalversusintracoronaryadministrationofglycoproteiniibiiiainhibitorsduringpercutaneouscoronaryinterventioninpatientswithacutecoronarysyndromesametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials