Clinical outcome of intracoronary versus intravenous high-dose bolus administration of tirofiban in diabetic patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials remain inconsistent regarding the advantages and hazards related to intracoronary (IC) compared with intravenous (IV) administration of thrombolytics. We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IC versus IV tirofiban administration in diabetic patients (DM) with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS: This trial included 95 patients who were randomised to high-dose bolus plus a maintenance dose of tirofiban administered either IV or IC. The groups were compared for the incidence of composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. Levels of cardiac markers were recorded pre- and post-intervention for myocardial perfusion.

RESULTS: The MACE were not different between the groups, but post-procedure myocardial blush grade (MBG) 3 and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow were significant in the IC group (p = 0.45, 0.21, respectively), favouring the IC strategy. Peak values of both creatine kinase-muscle/brain (CK-MB) and high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) were significantly lower in the IC group (155.68 ± 121, 4291 ± 334 ng/dl) versus the IV group (192.4 ± 86, 5342 ± 286 ng/dl) (p = 0.021, p = 0.035, respectively). The peak value was significantly lower in the IC group than the IV group in terms of ST-segment resolution and 30-day left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p = 0.016 and 0.023, respectively).

CONCLUSION: Thirty days post PCI, IC tirofiban was more efficient in ameliorating blood flow in the coronary arteries and myocardial tissue perfusion in DM patients after STEMI despite bleeding events, and MACE rates showed no significant difference between the groups. The IC group showed better improvement in LVEF.