Intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration in STEMI patients: overview of current status and open questions

Repository of Nicolaus Copernicus University

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Kubica, Aldona
dc.contributor.author Koziński, Marek
dc.contributor.author Navarese, Eliano Pio
dc.contributor.author Grześk, Grzegorz
dc.contributor.author Goch, Aleksander
dc.contributor.author Kubica, Jacek
dc.date.accessioned 2012-12-19T16:24:56Z
dc.date.available 2012-12-19T16:24:56Z
dc.date.issued 2012-12-19
dc.identifier.uri http://repozytorium.umk.pl/handle/item/269
dc.description.abstract Objectives: To perform a systematic review to provide rationale for intracoronary (IC) abciximab administration in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), to summarize recent studies comparing IC vs. intravenous (IV) abciximab administration in this setting and to define questions that need to be answered in future trials determining the optimal abciximab regimen. Methods: A search covering the period from January 1993 to June 2011 was conducted by two independent investigators using MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Google Scholar databases. Proceedings from the scientific sessions of ACC, AHA, ESC, TCT and EuroPCR were also considered. Results: IC administration allows one to obtain a much higher concentration of abciximab than IV injection at the culprit lesion. Therefore it is hypothesized that IC abciximab administration provides more efficient GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition and more pronounced additional dose-dependent antiplatelet, antithrombotic, and antiinflammatory effects when compared to the IV route. Numerous observational and randomized studies comparing IC vs. IV abciximab in STEMI patients indicated improvement in different surrogate end points (infarct size, obstruction of coronary microcirculation, ST segment resolution, inflammatory mediators and markers of platelet activation) related to IC administration. The evidence supporting clinical benefits associated with IC injection of abciximab comes from one randomized and several non-randomized trials as most of the studies were underpowered to assess clinical outcomes. No difference in bleeding complications was observed between IC and IV regimens. Issues that need to be addressed in future studies include: the use of IC abciximab in combination with thrombectomy, the role of selective delivery systems, and the necessity of a prolonged IV infusion of abciximab after IC bolus administration. Conclusions: An accumulating body of evidence suggests the superiority of IC over IV abciximab administration in STEMI patients. However, further trials are warranted to establish the optimal strategy of abciximab treatment in this setting.
dc.language.iso eng
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject abciximab
dc.subject STEMI
dc.title Intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration in STEMI patients: overview of current status and open questions
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search repository

Advanced Search


My Account