Immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary stand-alone bolus administration of eptifibatide during coronary intervention (ICE) study

Walid Hassan, Hani Al-Sergani, Jehad Al Buraiki, Bruce Dunn, Fawaz Al Turki, Nathem Akhras, Fayez ElShaer, Mahboob Nawaz, Suliman Kharabsheh, Naser Elkum

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: This study evaluated the immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary (IC) eptifibatide administration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several studies tested intravenous (IV) bolus and continuous administration of eptifibatide during PCI. However, limited data are available regarding giving eptifibatide as IC bolus alone during PCI. Methods: We studied clinical outcomes of 376 patients who received coronary stent(s) and eptifibatide by 3 applications during PCI and were followed up over 24 months. Group A (119 patients) had IC eptifibatide bolus only, group B (119 patients) had IC bolus and IV infusion, and group C (138 patients) had IV bolus and infusion. The standard 2 boluses of eptifibatide 180 μg/kg were given either via IC or IV route, and only groups B and C received IV infusion at 2 μcg · kg-1 · min-1 for 18 to 24 hours. Results: There were 256 males and 120 females, with a mean age of 57 ± 11 years. Among them, 52% were diabetic. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative composite end point of death and myocardial infraction was lower in group A (2.5%) compared with group C (10.8%, odds ratio [OR] 4.3, P = .029) and group B (5.8%, OR 2.6, P = .17). Compared with group A, target vessel revascularization was 3-fold in group C (OR 3.3, P = .001) and 2-fold in group B (OR 2.0, P = .061). Bleeding was significantly higher in group C (OR 5.4, P < .0001) and group B (OR 3.4, P = .007) compared with group A. Rehospitalization was significantly lower in group A (10.9%) compared with group B (16.8%) and group C (28%) (P = .0009). Conclusion: The IC-bolus-alone application of eptifibatide may be safer and superior to the IV route, and continuous infusion may not be necessary. Large-scale prospective randomized trials are needed to further validate these findings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)345-351
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Heart Journal
Volume154
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Odds Ratio
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Intravenous Infusions
eptifibatide
Stents
Hemorrhage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary stand-alone bolus administration of eptifibatide during coronary intervention (ICE) study. / Hassan, Walid; Al-Sergani, Hani; Al Buraiki, Jehad; Dunn, Bruce; Al Turki, Fawaz; Akhras, Nathem; ElShaer, Fayez; Nawaz, Mahboob; Kharabsheh, Suliman; Elkum, Naser.

In: American Heart Journal, Vol. 154, No. 2, 08.2007, p. 345-351.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hassan, W, Al-Sergani, H, Al Buraiki, J, Dunn, B, Al Turki, F, Akhras, N, ElShaer, F, Nawaz, M, Kharabsheh, S & Elkum, N 2007, 'Immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary stand-alone bolus administration of eptifibatide during coronary intervention (ICE) study', American Heart Journal, vol. 154, no. 2, pp. 345-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2007.04.020
Hassan, Walid ; Al-Sergani, Hani ; Al Buraiki, Jehad ; Dunn, Bruce ; Al Turki, Fawaz ; Akhras, Nathem ; ElShaer, Fayez ; Nawaz, Mahboob ; Kharabsheh, Suliman ; Elkum, Naser. / Immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary stand-alone bolus administration of eptifibatide during coronary intervention (ICE) study. In: American Heart Journal. 2007 ; Vol. 154, No. 2. pp. 345-351.
@article{b1922754622f4dd79d89c2574d2c0995,
title = "Immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary stand-alone bolus administration of eptifibatide during coronary intervention (ICE) study",
abstract = "Background: This study evaluated the immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary (IC) eptifibatide administration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several studies tested intravenous (IV) bolus and continuous administration of eptifibatide during PCI. However, limited data are available regarding giving eptifibatide as IC bolus alone during PCI. Methods: We studied clinical outcomes of 376 patients who received coronary stent(s) and eptifibatide by 3 applications during PCI and were followed up over 24 months. Group A (119 patients) had IC eptifibatide bolus only, group B (119 patients) had IC bolus and IV infusion, and group C (138 patients) had IV bolus and infusion. The standard 2 boluses of eptifibatide 180 μg/kg were given either via IC or IV route, and only groups B and C received IV infusion at 2 μcg · kg-1 · min-1 for 18 to 24 hours. Results: There were 256 males and 120 females, with a mean age of 57 ± 11 years. Among them, 52{\%} were diabetic. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative composite end point of death and myocardial infraction was lower in group A (2.5{\%}) compared with group C (10.8{\%}, odds ratio [OR] 4.3, P = .029) and group B (5.8{\%}, OR 2.6, P = .17). Compared with group A, target vessel revascularization was 3-fold in group C (OR 3.3, P = .001) and 2-fold in group B (OR 2.0, P = .061). Bleeding was significantly higher in group C (OR 5.4, P < .0001) and group B (OR 3.4, P = .007) compared with group A. Rehospitalization was significantly lower in group A (10.9{\%}) compared with group B (16.8{\%}) and group C (28{\%}) (P = .0009). Conclusion: The IC-bolus-alone application of eptifibatide may be safer and superior to the IV route, and continuous infusion may not be necessary. Large-scale prospective randomized trials are needed to further validate these findings.",
author = "Walid Hassan and Hani Al-Sergani and {Al Buraiki}, Jehad and Bruce Dunn and {Al Turki}, Fawaz and Nathem Akhras and Fayez ElShaer and Mahboob Nawaz and Suliman Kharabsheh and Naser Elkum",
year = "2007",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.ahj.2007.04.020",
language = "English",
volume = "154",
pages = "345--351",
journal = "American Heart Journal",
issn = "0002-8703",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary stand-alone bolus administration of eptifibatide during coronary intervention (ICE) study

AU - Hassan, Walid

AU - Al-Sergani, Hani

AU - Al Buraiki, Jehad

AU - Dunn, Bruce

AU - Al Turki, Fawaz

AU - Akhras, Nathem

AU - ElShaer, Fayez

AU - Nawaz, Mahboob

AU - Kharabsheh, Suliman

AU - Elkum, Naser

PY - 2007/8

Y1 - 2007/8

N2 - Background: This study evaluated the immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary (IC) eptifibatide administration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several studies tested intravenous (IV) bolus and continuous administration of eptifibatide during PCI. However, limited data are available regarding giving eptifibatide as IC bolus alone during PCI. Methods: We studied clinical outcomes of 376 patients who received coronary stent(s) and eptifibatide by 3 applications during PCI and were followed up over 24 months. Group A (119 patients) had IC eptifibatide bolus only, group B (119 patients) had IC bolus and IV infusion, and group C (138 patients) had IV bolus and infusion. The standard 2 boluses of eptifibatide 180 μg/kg were given either via IC or IV route, and only groups B and C received IV infusion at 2 μcg · kg-1 · min-1 for 18 to 24 hours. Results: There were 256 males and 120 females, with a mean age of 57 ± 11 years. Among them, 52% were diabetic. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative composite end point of death and myocardial infraction was lower in group A (2.5%) compared with group C (10.8%, odds ratio [OR] 4.3, P = .029) and group B (5.8%, OR 2.6, P = .17). Compared with group A, target vessel revascularization was 3-fold in group C (OR 3.3, P = .001) and 2-fold in group B (OR 2.0, P = .061). Bleeding was significantly higher in group C (OR 5.4, P < .0001) and group B (OR 3.4, P = .007) compared with group A. Rehospitalization was significantly lower in group A (10.9%) compared with group B (16.8%) and group C (28%) (P = .0009). Conclusion: The IC-bolus-alone application of eptifibatide may be safer and superior to the IV route, and continuous infusion may not be necessary. Large-scale prospective randomized trials are needed to further validate these findings.

AB - Background: This study evaluated the immediate and intermediate results of intracoronary (IC) eptifibatide administration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several studies tested intravenous (IV) bolus and continuous administration of eptifibatide during PCI. However, limited data are available regarding giving eptifibatide as IC bolus alone during PCI. Methods: We studied clinical outcomes of 376 patients who received coronary stent(s) and eptifibatide by 3 applications during PCI and were followed up over 24 months. Group A (119 patients) had IC eptifibatide bolus only, group B (119 patients) had IC bolus and IV infusion, and group C (138 patients) had IV bolus and infusion. The standard 2 boluses of eptifibatide 180 μg/kg were given either via IC or IV route, and only groups B and C received IV infusion at 2 μcg · kg-1 · min-1 for 18 to 24 hours. Results: There were 256 males and 120 females, with a mean age of 57 ± 11 years. Among them, 52% were diabetic. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative composite end point of death and myocardial infraction was lower in group A (2.5%) compared with group C (10.8%, odds ratio [OR] 4.3, P = .029) and group B (5.8%, OR 2.6, P = .17). Compared with group A, target vessel revascularization was 3-fold in group C (OR 3.3, P = .001) and 2-fold in group B (OR 2.0, P = .061). Bleeding was significantly higher in group C (OR 5.4, P < .0001) and group B (OR 3.4, P = .007) compared with group A. Rehospitalization was significantly lower in group A (10.9%) compared with group B (16.8%) and group C (28%) (P = .0009). Conclusion: The IC-bolus-alone application of eptifibatide may be safer and superior to the IV route, and continuous infusion may not be necessary. Large-scale prospective randomized trials are needed to further validate these findings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34447552489&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34447552489&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.04.020

DO - 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.04.020

M3 - Article

VL - 154

SP - 345

EP - 351

JO - American Heart Journal

JF - American Heart Journal

SN - 0002-8703

IS - 2

ER -