The relative safety and efficacy of abciximab and eptifibatide in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from a large regional registry of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess whether the use of eptifibatide instead of abciximab is associated with a difference in outcomes of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

Pooled data from randomized controlled trials suggest that the use of abciximab may be associated with a survival advantage in patients undergoing primary PCI for acute STEMI. However, a large proportion of patients in the community are treated with eptifibatide, an agent that shares some but not all pharmacological properties with abciximab.

METHODS

We evaluated the outcomes of 3,541 patients who underwent primary PCI for STEMI from October 2002 to July 2006 in a large regional consortium and who were treated with abciximab (n = 729) or with eptifibatide (n = 2,812).

RESULTS

There was no difference in the incidence of in-hospital death (4.1% with abciximab vs. 3.5% with eptifibatide, p = 0.39), recurrent myocardial infarction (0.8% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.42), or stroke/transient ischemic attack (0.7% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.80). There was no difference in the need for blood transfusion (12.4% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.61), whereas there was a greater incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding with abciximab (4.8% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.01). In parsimonious risk-adjusted models, no significant difference between abciximab and eptifibatide was observed with respect to any of the outcomes measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, eptifibatide is used as the adjunct antiplatelet agent in the majority of patients undergoing primary PCI. There is no apparent difference in early outcomes of patients treated with eptifibatide compared with patients treated with abciximab.