Similar anti-inflammatory effects of intracoronary and intravenous Abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized study

Background Intracoronary Abciximab administration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) could offer theoretical advantages over the intravenous route. Besides antiplatelet effects, Abciximab can modulate inflammation via cross-reactivity with GPIIb/IIIa, avb3, and aMb2 receptors. The aim of our study was to assess whether the Abciximab administration route could influence its anti-inflammatory effects. Methods Eighty-nine consecutive ST elevation myocardial infarction patient candidates for pPCI were randomized to intracoronary (Group A-47 patients) or intravenous (Group B-42 patients) Abciximab bolus administration. The primary endpoint was the extent of inflammation, measured by C-reactive protein (CRP), vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) and inter-cellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) levels. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01757457. Results Data are expressed in medians (interquartiles). In both groups, troponin levels were similar [baseline: 0.12 (0.03–0.94) vs. 0.27 (0.07–1.24) ng/ml, P = 0.73; postprocedural: 22.00 (14.75–69.43) vs. 31.96 (8.23–7.20) ng/ml, P = 0.83]. Both groups also showed similar baseline [0.31 (0.14–0.69) vs. 0.22 (0.09–0.59) mg/ml, P = 0.80] and postprocedural CRP levels [2.28 (1.37–4.23) vs. 2.16 (1.15–3.22) mg/dl, P = 0.69], similar baseline [272.5 (224.7–340.8) vs. 262.2 (221.2–306.4) ng/ml, P = 0.33] and postprocedural soluble ICAM-1 levels [281.5 (244.6–337.4) vs. 287.2 (226.9–359.2) ng/ml P = 0.71], and similar baseline [771.6 (620.9–971.0) vs. 748.6 (592.2–838.8) ng/ml, P = 0.30] and postprocedural soluble VCAM-1 levels [785.2 (671.6–947.1) vs. 745.9 (641.1–841.9) ng/ml, P = 0.17]. In-hospital and 6-month event rates were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Our study suggests that Abciximab has similar anti-inflammatory effects irrespective of the administration route. It is unlikely that the potential clinical benefits of intracoronary Abciximab can be related to modulation of integrin receptors.

[1]  G. Schuler,et al.  Intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab bolus in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results of the randomized AIDA STEMI trial. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  G. Schuler,et al.  Intracoronary compared with intravenous bolus abciximab application during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: cardiac magnetic resonance substudy of the AIDA STEMI trial. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  G. De Luca,et al.  Clinical efficacy and safety of intracoronary vs. intravenous abciximab administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials , 2012, Platelets.

[4]  S. Jolly,et al.  AIDA STEMI: no benefit for intracoronary abciximab , 2012, The Lancet.

[5]  G. Schuler,et al.  Intracoronary versus intravenous bolus abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a randomised trial , 2012, The Lancet.

[6]  J. Fox,et al.  Meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials comparing intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2012, The American journal of cardiology.

[7]  A. Shimony,et al.  Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. , 2011, The American journal of cardiology.

[8]  H. Hillege,et al.  Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Administration of Abciximab in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Thrombus Aspiration: The Comparison of Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Abciximab Administration During Emergency Reperf , 2010, Circulation.

[9]  P. Hansen,et al.  Improved clinical outcomes with intracoronary compared to intravenous abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2010, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[10]  P. Poirier,et al.  Long term efficacy of abciximab bolus‐only compared to abciximab bolus and infusion after transradial coronary stenting , 2009, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[11]  J. Kaski,et al.  Intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention--effects on soluble CD40 ligand concentrations. , 2009, Atherosclerosis.

[12]  I. Nault,et al.  One-year clinical outcome after abciximab bolus-only compared with abciximab bolus and 12-hour infusion in the Randomized EArly Discharge after Transradial Stenting of CoronarY Arteries (EASY) Study. , 2008, American heart journal.

[13]  K. Schindler,et al.  Intracoronary Compared With Intravenous Bolus Abciximab Application in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Randomized Leipzig Immediate Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Abciximab IV Versus IC in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarct , 2008, Circulation.

[14]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Effect of abciximab on clinical and angiographic restenosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. , 2008, American Journal of Cardiology.

[15]  J. Alpert,et al.  Universal definition of myocardial infarction. , 2007, European heart journal.

[16]  P. Serruys,et al.  Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions , 2007, Circulation.

[17]  E. Romagnoli,et al.  Rationale for intracoronary administration of abciximab , 2007, Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis.

[18]  A. Toso,et al.  Increase of myocardial salvage and left ventricular function recovery with intracoronary abciximab downstream of the coronary occlusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary coronary intervention , 2004, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[19]  H. Hanley,et al.  Comparison of intracoronary vs. intravenous administration of abciximab in coronary stenting , 2004, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[20]  V. Hombach,et al.  Reduction of Major Adverse Cardiac Events With Intracoronary Compared With Intravenous Bolus Application of Abciximab in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction or Unstable Angina Undergoing Coronary Angioplasty , 2003, Circulation.

[21]  K. Ray Abciximab suppresses the rise in levels of circulating inflammatory markers after percutaneous coronary revascularization. , 2002, Circulation.

[22]  E. Ohman,et al.  Reduced thrombus burden with abciximab delivered locally before percutaneous intervention in saphenous vein grafts. , 2000, American heart journal.

[23]  F. Neumann,et al.  Effect of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade on platelet-leukocyte interaction and surface expression of the leukocyte integrin Mac-1 in acute myocardial infarction. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  R. Jordan,et al.  Abciximab (ReoPro, Chimeric 7E3 Fab) Demonstrates Equivalent Affinity and Functional Blockade of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa and αvβ3 Integrins , 1998 .

[25]  R. Jordan,et al.  Abciximab (ReoPro, chimeric 7E3 Fab) demonstrates equivalent affinity and functional blockade of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa and alpha(v)beta3 integrins. , 1998, Circulation.

[26]  S. Bailey,et al.  Angioscopic evaluation of site-specific administration of ReoPro. , 1997, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[27]  R. Califf,et al.  Evidence for prevention of death and myocardial infarction with platelet membrane glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blockade by abciximab (c7E3 Fab) among patients with unstable angina undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization. EPIC Investigators. Evaluation of 7E3 in Preventing Ischemic Compl , 1997, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[28]  N. Rao,et al.  7E3 monoclonal antibody directed against the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa cross-reacts with the leukocyte integrin Mac-1 and blocks adhesion to fibrinogen and ICAM-1. , 1997, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[29]  P. Serruys,et al.  Intracoronary heparin delivery in humans. Acute feasibility and long-term results. , 1995, Circulation.

[30]  D. Waters,et al.  Inhibition of platelet deposition and lysis of intracoronary thrombus during balloon angioplasty using urokinase-coated hydrogel balloons. , 1994, Circulation.

[31]  R. Califf,et al.  Randomised trial of coronary intervention with antibody against platelet IIb/IIIa iritegrin for reduction of clinical restenosis: results at six months , 1994, The Lancet.

[32]  E J Topol,et al.  Randomised trial of coronary intervention with antibody against platelet IIb/IIIa integrin for reduction of clinical restenosis: results at six months. The EPIC Investigators. , 1994, Lancet.

[33]  R. Larson,et al.  Structure and Function of Leukocyte Integrins , 1990, Immunological reviews.

[34]  I. Rits DECLARATION OF HELSINKI. RECOMMENDATIONS GUIDINGS DOCTORS IN CLINICAL RESEARCH. , 1964, World medical journal.