A comparison of abciximab and small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend abciximab as the preferred agent for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, yet small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are more commonly used in clinical practice. The objective of our meta-analysis was to evaluate for differences in clinical outcome between small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and abciximab in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five randomized trials (n=2138 patients) comparing tirofiban or eptifibatide with abciximab as an adjunctive therapy to primary percutaneous coronary intervention were included in this meta-analysis. Summary odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day death, reinfarction, and major bleeding were calculated using random- and fixed-effect models. There were no differences in 30-day mortality (1.9% for small molecule versus 2.3% for abciximab; OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.55; P=0.58), reinfarction (1.3% versus 1.2%; OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.91; P=0.69), or major bleeding (1.7% versus 1.3%; OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.58 to 2.49; P=0.61) between the 2 adjunctive strategies. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death (3.9% versus 5%; OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.46; P=0.43) or reinfarction on follow-up at 8 months between small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and abciximab. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, no difference in outcome could be identified in patients treated with small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor or abciximab.