Comparison of abciximab versus eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the HORIZONS-AMI trial) Academic Article uri icon

Overview

MeSH Major

  • Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary
  • Antibodies, Monoclonal
  • Electrocardiography
  • Immunoglobulin Fab Fragments
  • Myocardial Infarction
  • Peptides

abstract

  • There are limited safety and effectiveness data comparing glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. In this substudy of the Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) trial, the clinical and bleeding outcomes of eptifibatide versus abciximab were evaluated in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Three-year clinical outcomes of patients in the heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor arm were compared according to treatment with abciximab (n = 907) versus eptifibatide (n = 803). Adjudicated end points included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; mortality, reinfarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, or stroke), major bleeding, and net adverse clinical events (MACEs or major bleeding). Propensity score matching was used to identify 1,342 matched cases (671 each in the abciximab and eptifibatide groups). Multivariate analysis was performed in the entire cohort and the propensity-matched groups. At 3-year follow-up, eptifibatide and abciximab resulted in nonsignificantly different rates of MACEs (18.3% vs 19.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.16, p = 0.51), major bleeding (10.7% vs 11.9%, HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.19, p = 0.44), and net adverse clinical events (24.5% vs 25.5%, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.17, p = 0.69). Similarly, at 3 years by multivariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference between abciximab and eptifibatide for net adverse clinical events (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09, p = 0.27), MACEs (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.20, p = 0.73), and major bleeding (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41, p = 0.75). The propensity-matched groups also had similar outcomes. In conclusion, abciximab and eptifibatide have comparable bleeding risks and clinical efficacy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

publication date

  • October 2012

Research

keywords

  • Academic Article

Identity

Language

  • eng

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.026

PubMed ID

  • 22748356

Additional Document Info

start page

  • 940

end page

  • 7

volume

  • 110

number

  • 7