S. Anna Hospital, Catanzaro, Italy.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2011 Jan;12(1):29-36. doi: 10.2459/JCM.0b013e32833cdd04.
There is no head-to-head comparison between tirofiban versus eptifibatide in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) when added to standard antiaggregating drugs (AAD) to prevent ischemic events within 1 year.
We compared real-world patients undergoing PCI who were on oral single AAD and were block randomized to receive, immediately preintervention, high-dose tirofiban (n = 519) or double-bolus eptifibatide (n = 147) and a second oral antiplatelet agent. The incidence of composite ischemic events within 1 year, including death, acute myocardial infarction, angina, stent thrombosis or repeat PCI or coronary bypass surgery (primary end-point) was modelled by forced Cox's regression.
There were overall 65 composite ischemic events: 47 (9.1%) in the tirofiban group and 18 (12.2%) in the eptifibatide group (univariate log-rank test: P = 0.22). On the basis of 21 potential covariates fitted simultaneously, multivariable adjusted hazard ratios showed that age [hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.07, P = 0.01], chronic renal failure (hazard ratio 3.21, 95% CI 1.02-10.10, P = 0.05), pre-PCI values of creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) (hazard ratio 1.002, 95% CI 1.0002-1.0054, P = 0.04), intra-aortic balloon pump (hazard ratio 5.88, 95% CI 12.33-14.85, P = 0.0002) and the presence of eptifibatide (hazard ratio 1.85, 95% CI 1.04-3.29, P = 0.04) were significant risk factors whereas thrombolysis by tenecteplase (hazard ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.69, P = 0.01) was a significant protector. Interestingly, eptifibatide versus tirofiban efficacy was explained based on pre-PCI values of CK-MB.
Head-to-head comparison between eptifibatide and tirofiban in patients undergoing PCI while on double AAD showed that eptifibatide had a lower efficacy on the incidence of composite ischemic events within 1 year, which might be explained by a reduced action on CK-MB pre-PCI.
在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者中,当加用标准抗血小板药物(AAD)以预防 1 年内的缺血事件时,替罗非班与依替巴肽之间尚无直接比较。
我们比较了正在接受 PCI 治疗且正在接受口服单一 AAD 治疗的真实世界患者,并进行了随机分组,以在术前即刻接受高剂量替罗非班(n=519)或双剂量依替巴肽(n=147)治疗,然后加用第二种口服抗血小板药物。1 年内复合缺血事件(包括死亡、急性心肌梗死、心绞痛、支架血栓形成或再次 PCI 或冠状动脉旁路移植术)的发生率采用强制 Cox 回归模型进行建模。
共有 65 例复合缺血事件:替罗非班组 47 例(9.1%),依替巴肽组 18 例(12.2%)(单变量对数秩检验:P=0.22)。在同时拟合 21 个潜在协变量的基础上,多变量调整后的危险比显示,年龄[危险比 1.03,95%置信区间(CI)1.01-1.07,P=0.01]、慢性肾功能衰竭(危险比 3.21,95%CI 1.02-10.10,P=0.05)、术前肌酸激酶-MB(CK-MB)值(危险比 1.002,95%CI 1.0002-1.0054,P=0.04)、主动脉内球囊泵(危险比 5.88,95%CI 12.33-14.85,P=0.0002)和依替巴肽的存在(危险比 1.85,95%CI 1.04-3.29,P=0.04)是显著的危险因素,而替奈普酶溶栓(危险比 0.19,95%CI 0.05-0.69,P=0.01)是显著的保护因素。有趣的是,根据术前 CK-MB 值,替罗非班与依替巴肽的疗效差异可以得到解释。
在接受双重 AAD 治疗的 PCI 患者中,替罗非班与依替巴肽的直接比较显示,依替巴肽在 1 年内复合缺血事件的发生率方面效果较低,这可能是由于术前 CK-MB 降低了其作用。