[Does intracoronary abciximab improve the outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions? A randomized controlled trial]

Author(s): Galache Osuna JG, Sanchez-Rubio J, Calvo I, Diarte JA, Lukic A, Placer LJ

Affiliation(s): Unidad de Hemodinamica y Cardiologia Intervencionista, Hospital Miguel Servet, Isabel la Catolica 1-3, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain. galaruiz@comz.org

Publication date & source: 2006-06, Rev Esp Cardiol., 59(6):567-74.

Publication type: Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: It has been clearly demonstrated that abciximab is useful in percutaneous coronary interventions. However, it is not known if intracoronary administration of the initial abciximab bolus improves outcome. Moreover, there may be safety concerns. METHODS: The study was a single-center prospective randomized trial that included all patients undergoing coronary angioplasty involving the use of abciximab. Patients were randomized to either intracoronary or intravenous administration of the abciximab bolus. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (i.e., death, myocardial infarction, or the need for revascularization); secondary endpoints were hemorrhagic complications and the troponin-I level. RESULTS: The study included 137 patients; 72 received an intracoronary abciximab bolus and 65, an intravenous bolus. Clinical characteristics and baseline angiographic findings were similar in the two groups. All patients underwent coronary stent implantation. No difference was observed between the intracoronary bolus group and the intravenous bolus group in type of stent used (drug eluting stent 47.2% vs 50.8%, respectively), total stent length, or final TIMI flow grade (3 vs 2.97, respectively). The intervention success rates were also similar (98.5% vs. 99%, respectively). No complication associated with the administration route was reported. However, the level of the myocardial injury marker troponin I increased significantly in the intravenous bolus group. Clinical follow-up at 1 year did not reveal any difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events: 8.5% in the intracoronary bolus group versus 6.2% in the intravenous bolus group. CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary administration of an abciximab bolus did not appear to be less safe or effective than intravenous administration. Less post-procedural myocardial damage was observed in the intracoronary bolus group.