4.4 Article

Intracoronary bolus administration of eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary stenting for non ST elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND THROMBOLYSIS
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 47-50

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11239-006-7454-8

关键词

non ST elevation myocardial infarction; unstable angina; glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor; intracoronary

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Distal embolization of thrombotic debris may occur during and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndromes. This may lead to impaired microvascular perfusion, myocardial infarction and increased morbidity and mortality. In vitro studies suggest that high local concentrations of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor may be effective in disaggregating thrombus and thereby prevent microvascular compromise. We hypothesized that intracoronary (IC) administration of eptifibatide during stent implantation for unstable angina/non ST elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) would be safe and would lead to an acceptable rate of normal myocardial perfusion. Methods: In 54 patients with UA/NSTEMI, 2 boluses of 180 mcg/kg of eptifibatide each were administered via the IC route during PCI. Data were retrospectively collected and reviewed by an independent core laboratory. Results: No adverse events including arrhythmias occurred during IC administration of eptifibatide. There were no deaths or urgent revascularizations among patients treated with IC eptifibatide. One patient (2.0%) sustained a post-procedure myocardial infarction. One patient sustained a TIMI major bleeding event due to a gastrointestinal bleed. There were no TIMI minor bleeding events. Normal post PCI TIMI Myocardial Perfusion Grade was observed in 54% of patients. Conclusion: IC bolus administration of eptifibatide was feasible and safe among patients with UA/NSTEMI. Larger prospective and randomized studies are warranted to further explore the efficacy of this strategy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据