HOMEPRODUCTSCOMPANYCONTACTFAQResearchDictionaryPharmaSign Up FREE or Login

Efficacy and Safety of Intracoronary versus Intravenous Administration of Tirofiban during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

AbstractBACKGROUND:
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is known as the most effective treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, without proper therapy and patient management, stent thrombosis after PCI may lead to another myocardial infarction. In addition to aspirin and clopidogrel, tirofiban is often used as an antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. To date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) tirofiban administration for ACS patients undergoing PCI compared with intravenous (IV) administration. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the clinical efficiency and safety of IC versus intravenous (IV) tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI.
METHODS:
We searched PubMed and Medline for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IC versus IV administration of tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI. We evaluated the effects of tirofiban on thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow after PCI, TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3 (TMP grade 3), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization (TVR), death, reinfarction and adverse drug effects (specifically bleeding events).
RESULTS:
Seven trials involving 1,027 patients were included in this meta-analysis. IC administration of tirofiban significantly increased TIMI grade 3 flow (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.37; P = 0.04) and TMP grade 3 (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.09 to 6.49; P = 0.03, I2 = 64%) while reducing MACE (OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.75; P = 0.002) compared with IV administration of tirofiban. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of TVR, death, reinfarction and the incidence of bleeding events between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
This meta-analysis supports the use of IC over IV administration of tirofiban in patients with ACS to improve TIMI flow, TMP flow and MACE. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of bleeding complications between the two groups.
AuthorsXiuying Tang, Runjun Li, Quanmin Jing, Yingfeng Liu, Peng Liu
JournalPloS one (PLoS One) Vol. 10 Issue 6 Pg. e0129718 ( 2015) ISSN: 1932-6203 [Electronic] United States
PMID26067296 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Meta-Analysis)
Chemical References
  • Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors
  • Tyrosine
  • Tirofiban
Topics
  • Acute Coronary Syndrome (drug therapy)
  • Administration, Intravenous
  • Humans
  • Infusions, Intralesional
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
  • Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors (administration & dosage)
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Tirofiban
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Tyrosine (administration & dosage, analogs & derivatives)

Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!

Take advantage of free CureHunter research engine access to explore the best drug and treatment options for any disease. Find out why thousands of doctors, pharma researchers and patient activists around the world use CureHunter every day.
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research graph!


Choose Username:
Email:
Password:
Verify Password:
Enter Code Shown: