Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with or without bail-out GPI use: a pre-specified subgroup analysis from the BRIGHT-4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting results comparing bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in part due to the confounding effect of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI). The aim of the study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion vs heparin with or without bail-out GPI use. METHODS: We conducted a pre-specified subgroup analysis from the BRIGHT-4 trial that randomized 6016 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI to receive either bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion for 2-4 h or heparin monotherapy. GPI use was only reserved as bail-out therapy for procedural thrombotic complications. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3-5 bleeding at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 5250 (87.4%) patients received treatment without GPI while 758 (12.6%) received bail-out GPI. Bail-out GPI use was associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome compared to non-GPI use (5.28% vs. 3.41%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-2.33; P = 0.009) and all-cause death (5.01% vs. 3.12%; aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.20-2.52; P = 0.004) but not in the risk of BARC types 3-5 bleeding (0.53% vs. 0.48%; aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.31-2.66; P = 0.85). Among patients without GPI use, bivalirudin was associated with lower rates of the primary outcome (2.63% vs. 4.21%; aHR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.77; P = 0.0005), all-cause death (2.52% vs. 3.74%; aHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.83; P = 0.003), and BARC types 3-5 bleeding (0.15% vs. 0.81%; aHR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.57; P = 0.003) compared with heparin. However, among patients requiring bail-out GPI, there were no significant differences observed in the rates of the primary outcome (5.76% vs. 4.87%; aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.36-1.66; P = 0.50; Pinteraction = 0.07) or its individual components between bivalirudin and heparin groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion was associated with significantly reduced 30-day composite rate of all-cause death or BARC types 3-5 bleeding compared with heparin monotherapy in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI without GPI use. However, these benefits might be less pronounced in patients requiring bail-out GPI due to thrombotic complications during primary PCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03822975.

One-Year Safety and Effectiveness of Bivalirudin versus Heparin in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: Bivalirudin reduces ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but the safety and efficacy for such individuals are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of bivalirudin in patients undergoing elective PCI. Methods: We examined 957 patients with bivalirudin anticoagulation and 1713 patients with unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulation with and without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI). The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding. The secondary endpoints were bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Results: In one year of follow-up, 307 (11.5%) NACEs, 72 (2.7%) bleedings, and 249 (9.3%) MACCEs occurred. Statistically, patients with bivalirudin anticoagulation had less NACE [hazard ratio (HR): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-0.96, p = 0.021] and bleeding (HR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34-0.99, p = 0.045) but not less MACCE, than did those with UFH anticoagulation. Furthermore, the risk of bleeding in the bivalirudin group was lower than in the UFH with GPI group (p = 0.001) but not lower than in the group of UFH without GPI (p = 0.197). Conclusions: In patients who undergo elective PCI, the use of bivalirudin significantly decreased the risk of NACE and bleeding without increasing the risk of MACCE; the reduction of bleeding risk with bivalirudin was mainly attributed to the presence of GPIs in the UFH group.

Association of Intravenous Tirofiban with Functional Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients with Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Receiving Endovascular Thrombectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that intravenous tirofiban improves functional outcomes without promoting the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in stroke secondary to basilar artery occlusion (BAO) receiving endovascular thrombectomy. METHODS: Patients with acute BAO stroke who were treated with endovascular thrombectomy and had tirofiban treatment information were derived from "BASILAR": a nationwide, prospective registry. All eligible patients were divided into tirofiban and no-tirofiban groups according to whether tirofiban was used intravenously. The primary endpoint was the 90-day severity of disability as assessed by the modified Rankin scale score. Safety outcomes were the frequency of ICH and mortality. RESULTS: Of 645 patients included in this cohort, 363 were in the tirofiban group and 282 were in the no-tirofiban group. Thrombectomy with intravenous tirofiban reduced the 90-day disability level over the range of the modified Rankin scale (adjusted common odds ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.45-2.97; p < 0.001). The 90-day mortality of patients in the tirofiban group was lower than that in the no-tirofiban group (41.6% vs. 52.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.77; p < 0.001). The frequency of any ICH (6.7% vs. 13.7%; p = 0.004) and symptomatic ICH (4.8% vs. 10.1%; p = 0.01) in the tirofiban group was significantly lower than that in the no-tirofiban group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute BAO stroke who underwent endovascular treatment, intravenous tirofiban might be associated with favorable outcome, reduced mortality, and a decreased frequency of ICH.

Intracoronary versus intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STEMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intracoronary (IC) administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) has been studied as an adjunctive therapy to improve outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IC administration of GPIs compared with those of intravenous (IV) administration in patients with STEMI. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for relevant studies published before September 21, 2022. In total, 22 randomized controlled trials involving 7,699 patients were included. RESULTS: The proportions of patients achieving thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow, myocardial blush grade 2/3, and complete ST-segment resolution were significantly higher in the IC group than in the IV group. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37-0.80) and heart failure (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.91) within 1 month were significantly lower in the IC group than in the IV group; however, after 6 months, no difference was observed in MACE risk. Additionally, the risks of death and bleeding did not differ between the two routes of administration. CONCLUSIONS: When considering adjunctive GPI administration for patients with STEMI, the IC route may offer greater benefits than the IV route in terms of myocardial reperfusion and reduced occurrence of MACE and heart failure within 1 month. Nonetheless, when making decisions for IC administration of GPIs, the absence of a benefit for bleeding risk and difficulty accessing the administration route should be considered.

Comparison of the effects of the GPIIb-IIIa antagonist Zalunfiban and the P2Y12 antagonist Selatogrel on Platelet Aggregation.

Understanding the pharmacodynamic effects of platelet inhibitors is standard for developing more effective antithrombotic therapies. An example is the antithrombotic treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), in particular ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who are in need for rapid acting strong antithrombotic therapy despite the use of aspirin and oral P2Y12-inhibitors. In this study, we evaluated two injectable platelet inhibitors under clinical development (the P2Y12 antagonist selatogrel and the GPIIb-IIIa antagonist zalunfiban) that may be amenable to pre-hospital treatment of STEMI patients. Platelet reactivity was assessed at inhibitor concentrations that represent clinically relevant levels of platelet inhibition (IC20-50%, 1/2Cmax, and Cmax). Light transmission aggregometry (LTA), was used to evaluate the initial rate of aggregation (primary slope, PS) and maximal aggregation (MA). Both adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and thrombin receptor agonist peptide (TRAP) were used as agonists. Zalunfiban demonstrated similar inhibition of platelet aggregation when blood was collected in PPACK or TSC, whereas selatogrel demonstrated greater inhibition in PPACK. In this study, using PPACK anticoagulant, selatogrel and zalunfiban affected PS in response to ADP equivalently at all drug concentrations tested. In contrast, zalunfiban had significantly greater potency at its Cmax concentration compared to selatogrel using TRAP as agonist. Upon evaluation of MA responses at lower doses, selatogrel had greater inhibition of MA in response to ADP than zalunfiban; however, at concentrations that represent Cmax, the drugs were equivalent. Zalunfiban also had greater inhibition of MA in response to TRAP at the Cmax dose. These data suggest that zalunfiban may provide greater protection in reducing thrombus formation than selatogrel, especially since thrombin is an early, key primary agonist in the pathophysiology of thrombotic events.

Thrombus containing lesions strategies during primary percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from ORPKI National Registry.

In the era of potent P2Y12 inhibitors, according to current guidelines, treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) should be limited to bail-out and/or highly thrombotic situations. Similarly, the recommendation for aspiration thrombectomy (AT) is downgraded to very selective use. We examine the prevalence, and predictors of GPI and AT use in STEMI patients referred to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data on 116,873 consecutive STEMI patients referred to primary PCI in Poland between 2015 and 2020 were analyzed. GPIs were administered in 29.3%, AT was used in 11.6%, and combined treatment with both in 6.1%. There was a mild trend toward a decrease in GPI and AT usage during the analyzed years. On the contrary, there was a rapid growth of the ticagrelor/prasugrel usage rate from 6.5 to 48.1%. Occluded infarct-related artery at baseline and no-reflow during PCI were the strongest predictors of GPI administration (OR 2.3; 95% CI 2.22-2.38 and OR 3.47; 95% CI 3.13-3.84, respectively) and combined usage of GPI and AT (OR 4.4; 95% CI 4.08-4.8 and OR 3.49; 95% CI 3.08-3.95 respectively) in a multivariate logistic regression model. Similarly, the administration of ticagrelor/prasugrel was an independent predictor of both adjunctive treatment strategies. In STEMI patients in Poland, GPIs are selectively used in one in four patients during primary PCI, and the combined usage of GPI and AT is marginal. Despite the rapid growth in potent P2Y12 inhibitors usage in recent years, GPIs are selectively used at a stable rate during PCI in highly thrombotic lesions.

Eptifibatide, an Older Therapeutic Peptide with New Indications: From Clinical Pharmacology to Everyday Clinical Practice.

Therapeutic peptides are oligomers or short polymers of amino acids used for various medical purposes. Peptide-based treatments have evolved considerably due to new technologies, stimulating new research interests. They have been shown to be beneficial in a variety of therapeutic applications, notably in the treatment of cardiovascular disorders such as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). ACS is characterized by coronary artery wall damage and consequent formation of an intraluminal thrombus obstructing one or more coronary arteries, leading to unstable angina, non-ST elevated myocardial infarction, and ST-elevated myocardial infarction. One of the promising peptide drugs in the treatment of these pathologies is eptifibatide, a synthetic heptapeptide derived from rattlesnake venom. Eptifibatide is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor that blocks different pathways in platelet activation and aggregation. In this narrative review, we summarized the current evidence on the mechanism of action, clinical pharmacology, and applications of eptifibatide in cardiology. Additionally, we illustrated its possible broader usage with new indications, including ischemic stroke, carotid stenting, intracranial aneurysm stenting, and septic shock. Further research is, however, required to fully evaluate the role of eptifibatide in these pathologies, independently and in comparison to other medications.

Combined Approach to Eptifibatide and Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Because of Large Vessel Occlusion: A Matched-Control Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT), adjunctive antithrombotic might improve angiographic reperfusion, reduce the risk of distal emboli and reocclusion but possibly expose patients to a higher intracranial hemorrhage risk. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of combined MT plus eptifibatide for acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: This was a propensity-matched analysis of data from 2 prospective trials in Chinese populations: the ANGEL-ACT trial (Endovascular Treatment Key Technique and Emergency Workflow Improvement of Acute Ischemic Stroke) in 111 hospitals between November 2017 and March 2019, and the EPOCH trial (Eptifibatide in Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke) in 15 hospitals between April 2019 and March 2020. The primary efficacy outcome was good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) at 3 months. Secondary efficacy outcomes included the distribution of 3-month modified Rankin Scale scores and poor outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 5-6) and successful recanalization. The safety outcomes included any intracranial hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and 3-month mortality. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to account for within-hospital clustering in adjusted analyses. RESULTS: Eighty-one combination arm EPOCH subjects were matched with 81 ANGEL-ACT noneptifibatide patients. Compared with the no eptifibatide group, the eptifibatide group had significantly higher rates of successful recanalization (91.3% versus 81.5%; P=0.043) and 3-month good outcomes (53.1% versus 33.3%; P=0.016). No significant difference was found in the remaining outcome measures between the 2 groups. All outcome measures of propensity score matching were consistent with mixed-effects logistic regression models in the total population. CONCLUSIONS: This matched-control study demonstrated that MT combined with eptifibatide did not raise major safety concerns and showed a trend of better efficacy outcomes compared with MT alone. Overall, eptifibatide shows potential as a periprocedural adjunctive antithrombotic therapy when combined with MT. Further randomized controlled trials of MT plus eptifibatide should be prioritized. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03844594 (EPOCH), NCT03370939 (ANGEL-ACT).

Intralesional delivery of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute myocardial infarction: Review and recommendations.

Plaque rupture leads to a cascade of events culminating in collagen disruption, tissue factor release, platelet activation and thrombus formation. Pro-inflammatory conditions, hyperglycemia and smoking predispose to high thrombus burden (HTB) which is an independent predictor of slow or no-reflow. In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) reduce thrombus burden and improve myocardial perfusion. These agents are typically administered systemically via the intravenous route or locally via an intracoronary (IC) route. However, as higher local concentrations of GPI are associated with enhanced platelet inhibition, intralesional (IL) GPI administration may be particularly effective in cases of HTB. Modest-sized randomized trials comparing IL and IC GPI delivery have reported conflicting outcomes. Some trials have demonstrated improved coronary flow and myocardial perfusion with reduced major adverse cardiac events with IL compared with IC GPI administration, whereas others have shown no significant benefits. Furthermore, although no direct comparison has been made between IL delivery using an aspiration catheter, microcatheter or a dedicated balloon-based "weeping" infusion-catheter, improved outcomes have been most consistent following GPI administration at the site of the lesion and thrombus with the dedicated infusion catheter. This review provides an update on the role and outcomes of IL GPI administration in patients with AMI and HTB. Based on the evidence we offer an algorithm demonstrating when to consider IL administration in patients with AMI undergoing intervention. We conclude with a perspective on the management of patients with STEMI and COVID-19 in whom a prothrombotic state often results in HTB.

Efficacy and safety of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in addition to P2Y12 inhibitors in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A subanalysis of the POPular Genetics trial.

BACKGROUND: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) are still used in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), although discussion about its clinical benefit is ongoing. METHODS: GPI use was analyzed in this subanalysis of the POPular Genetics trial, which randomized STEMI patients to CYP2C19 genotype-guided treatment (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) or standard treatment with ticagrelor/prasugrel. The composite thrombotic endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis, and stroke at 30 days. The combined bleeding endpoint consisted of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major and minor bleeding at 30 days. Univariable and multivariable analyses in addition to a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis were conducted. RESULTS: In total, 2378 patients, of whom 1033 received GPI and 1345 did not, were included. In multivariable analysis, GPI administration was associated with fewer thrombotic events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.55) and MIs (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.73). Furthermore, GPI administration was associated with an increase in bleedings (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.27-3.19), driven by minor bleedings (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.43-3.76), without a significant difference in major bleedings (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.19-2.57). In the PSM analysis, no significant association was found. CONCLUSION: In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, GPI administration was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events at a cost of an increase in (mostly minor) bleedings in multivariable analysis, while propensity score analysis did not show significant associations.

Association Between Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibition and In-Hospital Outcomes in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Treated with Coronary Thrombus Aspiration: Findings from the CCC-ACS Project.

PURPOSE: Thrombus aspiration in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with high thrombus burden did not improve clinical outcomes. The clinical efficacy of the bailout use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in this clinical scenario remains unknown. METHODS: We assessed associations between GPI use and in-hospital major bleeds, ischemic events, and mortality among STEMI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and thrombus aspiration in a nationwide acute coronary syndrome registry (the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome project). RESULTS: A total of 5896 STEMI patients who received thrombus aspiration were identified, among which 56.3% received GPI therapy. In a 1-to-1 propensity-score-matched cohort, compared with STEMI patients not treated with GPI, GPI use was associated with a 69% increase in major in-hospital bleeds, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.69, a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.08 to 2.65, and a nonsignificant reduction in ischemic events (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.06), as well as a neutral effect on mortality (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.58). However, among patients aged < 60 years, GPI use was associated with a reduction in ischemic events (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.98), and no significant increase in major bleeds was observed. CONCLUSION: In a nationwide registry, routine use of GPI following thrombus aspiration was not associated with reduced in-hospital ischemic events and mortality but at the cost of increased major bleeding. However, for patients aged < 60 years, there may be a potential net benefit.

Potent platelet inhibition with peri-procedural tirofiban may attenuate progression of atherosclerosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Organization of platelet-rich thrombus at the site of plaque disruption may contribute to rapid progression of atherosclerosis. This study was conducted to investigate if potent platelet inhibition therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) mitigates plaque progression. Patients enrolled in the EROSION study who presented with ACS caused by plaque erosion and underwent serial imaging of the culprit lesion by optical coherence tomography at baseline, 1 month, and 1 year were included. Among 49 patients, 32 (65.3%) patients were treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) in addition to aspirin and ticagrelor. The increase in area stenosis from baseline to 1-year follow-up was significantly smaller in patients treated with GPI, compared to those without GPI therapy (4.8% [- 1.6 to 10.9] vs. 9.6% [4.0 to 21.3], p = 0.031). The cohort was divided into 2 groups based on culprit lesion phenotype at 1 year: Group A, new layer formation at 1-year that was not present at baseline (n = 18); Group B, no new layer formation (n = 31). A new layer was less frequently found at 1 year in patients treated with GPI than in those without GPI (25.0% vs. 58.8%, p = 0.019). Group A, compared to Group B, was associated with a greater increase in area stenosis (19.0 ± 16.4% vs. 3.7 ± 7.1%; p < 0.001). Potent platelet inhibition with GPI in patients with ACS caused by plaque erosion was associated with lower incidence of new layer formation and less plaque progression.

Cangrelor vs. glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: To date, there are no real-world studies comparing cangrelor to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Thus, we performed this study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of cangrelor compared to GPI during PCI. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent PCI at our institution who received either cangrelor or GPI during PCI. Patients already on GPI or cangrelor prior to PCI or who received both cangrelor and GPI were excluded. Baseline demographics and clinical outcomes were extracted. Major bleeding is defined as a composite of major hematoma >4 cm, hematocrit drop >15, and gastrointestinal bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 2072 patients received adjunctive antiplatelet therapy during PCI (cangrelor [n=478]; GPI [n=1594]). Patients' mean age was 61±12 years. Most (66%) presented with acute coronary syndrome. Patients who received cangrelor were older and had a higher percentage of acute coronary syndrome and lower baseline hematocrit in comparison with patients who received GPI. Procedural success was achieved in 94% of patients, with no difference between groups. Major bleeding events (1.7% vs. 5.1%, P=.001), any vascular complication rates, and hospital length of stay were significantly lower in the cangrelor group. In-hospital ischemic events did not differ between groups. On regression analysis, patients on cangrelor were noted to have significantly lower major bleeding events (OR 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Balancing ischemic and bleeding risks with adjunctive antiplatelet drugs is of prime importance during PCI. Our real-world analysis shows that cangrelor is safe and effective when compared to GPI during PCI.

Antithrombotic regimens for percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main coronary artery: The EXCEL trial.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the effect of bivalirudin or heparin and use or nonuse of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) on the outcome of left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the randomized EXCEL trial. BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic regimen to support PCI of the LMCA remains controversial because of low representation of this subset in clinical trials. METHODS: The PCI cohort (n = 928) in EXCEL was divided according to bivalirudin versus heparin antithrombin treatment and compared for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 30 days and 5 years. RESULTS: Bivalirudin was used in 319 patients (34.4%). The composite endpoint at 30 days occurred in 7.2% versus 3.8% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02; at 5 years, the composite endpoint occurred in 26.3% versus 19.9% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02. Major bleeding was more frequent in bivalirudin patients (4.1% versus 1.3%, p = .008). There were no differences in stent thrombosis between the groups. Bivalirudin use was an independent predictor of the 30-day composite endpoint (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.28-6.48, p = .01) but not of the 5-year composite endpoint (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.02, p = .23). GPI use was infrequent (n = 67, 7.2%) and was not associated with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing LMCA PCI in the EXCEL trial, procedural use of bivalirudin was associated with greater rates of periprocedural MI and the 30-day composite endpoint without reducing bleeding complications. Five-year outcomes were similar. GPIs were used infrequently and were not associated with clinical outcomes.

Modulators of Mortality Benefit From Peri-Angioplasty Adjunctive Tirofiban in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Studies investigating the modulators of mortality benefit conferred by peri-angioplasty glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are still lacking.Methods and Results:A prospective database (n=1,025) of consecutive cases undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI was retrospectively analyzed. For patients in Killip class I, II or III, IV, the multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios of 30-day all-cause mortality associated with adjunctive tirofiban were 3.873 (95% CI 0.504-29.745; P=0.193), 0.550 (95% CI 0.188-1.609; P=0.275), and 0.264 (95% CI 0.099-0.704; P=0.008), respectively. The P value for a linear trend was 0.032. Patients who had a body mass index (BMI) within 22.9-25.0 kg/m2had a significant benefit from tirofiban (adjusted HR 0.344; 95% CI 0.145-0.814; P=0.015) compared to other BMI groups. The P value for a quadratic trend was 0.012. A novel Killip-BMI score (KBS = 2.5 × Killip category - | BMI - 24 |) was calculated to select the beneficial population. A KBS ≥2 was associated with significant mortality benefit, whereas a KBS <0 predicted increased 30-day mortality with tirofiban use. CONCLUSIONS: Survival benefit from peri-angioplasty tirofiban therapy for STEMI was positively correlated with the Killip class. Tirofiban should be used cautiously in either underweight or overweight patients. The novel KBS used in this study can guide peri-angioplasty use of adjunctive tirofiban in patients with STEMI undergoing primary angioplasty.

Complications and Management of Eptifibatide-Induced Thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: Eptifibatide is used in acute coronary syndromes to reversibly block platelet aggregation by inhibiting the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor. A serious adverse effect of eptifibatide is a profound drop in platelet count, termed eptifibatide-induced thrombocytopenia (EIT). OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the types of complications and management of EIT. METHODS: Cases of EIT submitted to the Food and Drug Administration adverse event reporting system were evaluated. Data analyses included management of EIT, complications of thrombocytopenia, initial platelets, and platelet nadir following eptifibatide. RESULTS: 103 cases of EIT were reported from January 2010 to 2019; 57 cases met the Naranjo scale and were included. Only 37 of those cases contained information on how EIT was managed. Eptifibatide administration was withheld in all 37 of those cases. Platelet transfusions were administered in 20 cases (54%). Two cases were managed with steroids (5.4%), and 1 case used intravenous immunoglobulin G to reverse EIT (2%). The median initial platelet count prior to administration of eptifibatide was 207 000 cells/mm3 (SD = 69 000; n = 27), and median platelet nadir was 9000 cells/mm3 (SD = 19 000; n = 35) The majority of complications of EIT included bleeding events (16/28, 57%). Delayed procedures, prolonged stay, allergic reactions, and thrombosis were each reported in 3 patients (10.75%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Most cases of EIT were managed by withholding eptifibatide with platelet transfusion if necessary. The majority of complications included bleeding. However, significant procedure delays, prolonged hospital stay, thrombosis, and allergic reactions were also reported.

Prolonged enoxaparin therapy compared with standard-of-care antithrombotic therapy in opiate-treated patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

A novel enoxaparin regimen consisting of intra-arterial bolus (0.75 mg/kg) followed by intravenous infusion (0.75 mg/kg/6 hours) has been developed as a possible solution to the delayed absorption of oral P2Y12 inhibitors in opiate-treated ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary angioplasty. We aimed to study the feasibility of this regimen as an alternative to standard-of-care treatment (SOC) with unfractionated heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonist (GPI). One hundred opiate-treated patients presenting with STEMI and accepted for primary angioplasty were randomized (1:1) to either enoxaparin or SOC. Fifty patients were allocated enoxaparin (median age 61, 40% females) and 49 allocated SOC (median age 62, 22% females). One developed stroke before angiography and was withdrawn. One SOC patient had a gastrointestinal bleed resulting in 1 g drop in hemoglobin and early cessation of GPI infusion. Two enoxaparin patients had transient minor bleeding: one transient gingival bleed and one episode of coffee ground vomit with no hemoglobin drop or hemodynamic instability. Two SOC and no enoxaparin group patients had acute stent thrombosis. These preliminary data support further study of this novel 6-hour enoxaparin regimen in opiate-treated PPCI patients.

Flow cytometric analysis of platelet surface glycoproteins in the diagnosis of thirty-two Turkish patients with Glanzmann thrombasthenia: a multicenter experience

Background/aim: Glanzmann thrombasthenia (GT) is a rare autosomal recessively inherited bleeding disorder characterized by the quantitative (type 1 and type 2) or qualitative (type 3) deficiency in platelet membrane glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa (CD41a/CD61) fibrinogen receptors. In type 1, 2, and 3, CD41a/CD61 expression is 5%, 5%­20% and above 20%, respectively. In this study, diagnosis of GT was confirmed and subgroups were identified in 32 Turkish patients by flow cytometry analysis. Materials and methods: CD41a/CD61 expression levels in platelet-rich plasma (PRP) obtained from peripheral venous EDTA blood samples were analyzed with a BD FACSCanto II flow cytometer (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). GT subgroup analysis was performed by counting 50,000 events in the BD FACSDiva Software v6.1.3 program of the instrument. Results: In the present study, in blood samples of 32 patients from 23 families with GT and 22 healthy controls, co-expression levels of CD41a and CD61 in PRP was analyzed. 12 out of 23 families were consistent with type 1 GT (52.2%), 4 were consistent with type 2 GT (17.4%), and 7 were consistent with type 3 GT (30.4%). Conclusion: Especially due to consanguineous marriages, GT with various glycoprotein levels may be detected. As a result of the flow cytometry analysis of the present study with the highest GT patient population in Turkey, type 1 GT patients were the most common subgroup. In the determination of the GT subgroups; especially in the detection of type 3 GT, flow cytometry is the most sensitive glycoprotein analysis method. In addition to light transmission aggregometry, CD41a/CD61 study by flow cytometer confirms diagnosis when mutation analysis cannot be performed.

Trends of Use and Outcomes Associated With Glycoprotein-IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) are a treatment option in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). Evidence supporting the use of GPIs predates trials establishing the benefits of P2Y12 inhibitors, routine early invasive therapy, and thrombectomy devices in patients with ACS. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine trends in GPI use and their associated outcomes in contemporary practice. Methods: We assessed GPI use in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry (2005-2013). The primary endpoint was the 30-day incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The safety endpoint was in-hospital major bleeding. Results: GPIs were used in 40.5% of 12 357 patients with ACS undergoing PCI. GPI use decreased over the study period (P for trend <0.0001). Patients were more likely to receive GPIs if they were younger, presented with a ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), had more complex (B2/C-type) lesions, and when thrombectomy devices were used (all P < 0.0001). MACE were higher in patients receiving GPI (4.9% vs 4.1%, P = 0.03). Propensity score matching revealed no difference in 30-day mortality and 30-day MACE (odds ratio [OR] = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.99-1.004 and OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.99-1.02, respectively). GPI use was associated with more bleeding complications (3.6% vs 1.8%, P < 0.0001). Conclusion and Relevance: GPI use in ACS patients undergoing PCI has declined, and use appears to be dictated by ACS type and lesion complexity, as opposed to high-risk comorbidities. GPI use was associated with a doubling in bleeding complications.

Prasugrel or ticagrelor relative to clopidogrel in triple-antiplatelet treatment combined with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor for patients with STEMI undergoing PCI: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: For patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the efficacy and safety of novel P2Y12 antagonists, including prasugrel or ticagrelor, has not been established relative to that of the clopidogrel-based triple-antiplatelet treatments (TAPTs; in combination with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor). The present meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of prasugrel- or ticagrelor-based TAPTs relative to that of clopidogrel TAPTs in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane's Library were systematically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials concerning prasugrel or ticagrelor (test) relative to clopidogrel (control). Depending on heterogeneity, studies were pooled with a random effects or a fixed effects model. Outcomes of blood flow after PCI were evaluated, including TIMI (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction), bleeding events, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). RESULTS: Seven studies comprising 11,874 patients conformed to the inclusion criteria. The pooled results with the fixed effects model indicated that after PCI patients in the prasugrel or ticagrelor groups were as likely as those treated with clopidogrel to achieve TIMI grade 3 flow or experience bleeding events. However, compared with the control, the test groups had significantly less risk of MACE (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94, P = 0.004), especially at the 1-year follow-up (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66-0.95, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A prasugrel- or ticagrelor-based TAPT may reduce the rate of MACEs, without increasing bleeding in STEMI patients undergoing PCI. However, due to the limited RCT studies and variations in study weight, results of this meta-analysis should be confirmed in a large RCT with adequate sample size and follow-up duration.