Intracoronary versus intravenous bolus abciximab application in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: 6-month effects on infarct size and left ventricular function. The randomised Leipzig Immediate PercutaneouS Coronary Intervention Abciximab i.v. versus i.c. in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Trial (LIPSIAbciximab-STEMI).
Author(s): Eitel I, Friedenberger J, Fuernau G, Dumjahn A, Desch S, Schuler G, Thiele H
Affiliation(s): Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, University of Leipzig-Heart Center, Strumpellstr. 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany. firstname.lastname@example.org
Publication date & source: 2011-05, Clin Res Cardiol., 100(5):425-32. Epub 2010 Dec 2.
Publication type: Comparative Study; Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND: Administration of abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Intracoronary (IC) abciximab bolus application during PCI results in high local drug concentration, improved perfusion, reduction of infarct size, and less microvascular obstruction early after infarction. Aim of this study was to investigate whether the early benefits of an IC abciximab administration in STEMI patients undergoing PCI are sustained at 6 months. METHODS: We performed 6-month follow-up of 154 STEMI patients undergoing PCI, who were randomised to either IC (n = 77) or intravenous (IV) (n = 77) bolus abciximab administration with subsequent 12-h intravenous infusion. The primary endpoint was infarct size at 6-month follow-up as assessed by delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical end points were MACEs within 6 months after infarction. RESULTS: The median infarct size after 6 months was significantly reduced in the IC abciximab group (16.7 vs. 24.1%, p = 0.002). A significant recovery of LV function was only observed in the IC abciximab group (p < 0.001), and IC abciximab group patients had significantly less adverse remodelling as compared to standard IV abciximab treatment (p = 0.03). These beneficial effects also translated into a strong trend towards a reduced MACE rate in the IC abciximab group at 6-month follow-up (10 vs. 21%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary abciximab application in STEMI patients undergoing PCI is superior to standard IV treatment with respect to infarct size, recovery of LV function and reverse remodelling 6 months after infarction.