A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study Comparing Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Abciximab in Patients...

The risk and benefit ratio of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors with dual oral antiplatelet therapy after failed thrombolysis and rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. Using a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind design, we compared intravenous (IV) and intracoronary (IC) abciximab delivery in 74 patients referred for rescue transradial PCI. The primary angiographic end points were the final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow and myocardial blush grades. Secondary end points included acute and 6-month outcomes using angiographic parameters, platelet aggregation parameters, cardiac biomarkers, cardiac magnetic resonance measurements (CMR) and clinical end points. After rescue PCI, normal thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flows were obtained in 70% in the IC group, 48% in the IV group, and 71% in the placebo group, respectively (p = 0.056). Final myocardial blush grades 2 and 3 were obtained in 43% and 39% in the IC group, 48% and 26% in the IV group, and 46% and 42% in the placebo group (p = 0.67), respectively. Acutely, peak release of cardiac biomarkers, necrosis size, myocardial perfusion and no-reflow as assessed by CMR, and clinical end points were similar between the groups and did not suggest a benefit for IC or IV abciximab compared with placebo. There was no increase in bleeding or access site-related complications with abciximab compared with placebo. Clinical, angiographic, and CMR outcomes at 6 months remained comparable between the groups. In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting with failed thrombolysis undergoing transradial rescue PCI, IC or IV abciximab had no significant clinical impact.