Ghazal Abdullatef, Shemirani Hasan, Amirpour Afshin, Kermani-Alghoraishi Mohammad
Interventional Cardiology Fellowship, Isfahan Cardiovascular Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Professor, Hypertension Research Center, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
ARYA Atheroscler. 2019 Mar;15(2):67-73. doi: 10.22122/arya.v15i2.1485.
Previous 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.
We 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.
The 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.
Both 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.
先前的研究已证明,对于急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者,冠状动脉内注射依替巴肽在减小梗死面积和改善临床结局方面比静脉注射更安全且更有效。本研究旨在比较局部冠状动脉内注射依替巴肽与冠状动脉内注射依替巴肽对改善心肌灌注及其结局的效果。
我们对60例血栓性AMI患者进行了一项随机临床试验研究。患者接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),并被随机分为两组,每组人数相等。第一组通过引导导管接受两次180μg/kg的依替巴肽推注剂量。第二组通过出口抽吸导管将相同的推注剂量直接注入冠状动脉病变部位。心肌梗死溶栓(TIMI)血流、心肌 blush 分级(MBG)和无复流现象为主要终点。次要终点为术前和术后心律失常、住院死亡率、不良反应、再感染、出院前心室收缩功能以及随访6个月后的再次住院率和死亡率。
第一组和第二组的平均年龄分别为58.3±1.8岁和57.0±2.0岁,大多数患者为男性(第一组90%,第二组80%)。冠状动脉内注射组和病变内注射组术后TIMI血流3级分别达到60.0%和76.7%(P = 0.307)。冠状动脉内注射组和病变内注射组术后MBG 3级分别达到53.3%和70.0%(P = 0.479)。两组在无复流评估方面无显著差异。此外,两组在次要终点分析中也无显著差异。
急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者在直接PCI期间冠状动脉内和病变内注射依替巴肽这两种方法在心肌灌注结局方面均安全且相似。