Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials of Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors via intracoronary (IC) route versus the intravenous (IV) route are not well known. We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating the role of IC versus IV glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The analysis included 14 trials with a total of 3,754 patients. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) had no statistically significant difference between the IC and the IV groups (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 1.10). Subgroup analysis showed that short-term MACE (i.e., ≤3 months) was reduced in the IC compared with the IV group; however, long-term MACE (>3 months) was not. IC group was superior in achievement of post-procedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11), myocardial blush grade II to III (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23), ST-segment resolution rates (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29; p = 0.01), and improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (standardized mean difference = 4.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.74). There was a trend for lower stent thrombosis with IC route (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.03). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in all-cause mortality, re-infarction, and major bleeding. In conclusion, despite lack of significant difference in overall MACE outcome, IC glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors may improve short -term MACE, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow, myocardial blush grade II- to III rates, ST-segment resolution, and left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the IV route.