Publications (2)5.64 Total impact
-
Article: Adenosine improves post-procedural coronary flow but not clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Adjunctive therapy with adenosine has been shown to improve coronary flow in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS); it is unclear, however, whether adenosine can effectively reduce adverse clinical events. The aim of our study was to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating angiographic and clinical outcomes in ACS patients undergoing PCI or thrombolysis and receiving adjunctive adenosine therapy vs. placebo. Medline/CENTRAL/EMBASE and Google Scholar database were scanned. The meta-analysis included ten RCTs (N=3821). All-cause mortality was chosen as primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were re-infarction (MI), heart failure (HF) symptoms (NYHA class III/IV), no-reflow (defined as TIMI 0 flow) and >50% ST-resolution. Adenosine compared to placebo was associated with a significant reduction of post-procedural no-reflow (OR [95% CI]=0.25 [0.08-0.73], p=0.01); however, at a median follow-up of 6 months, prior treatment with adenosine did not confer significant benefits in terms of reduction of mortality (OR(Fixed) [95% CI]=0.87 [0.69-1.09], p=0.23), as well as re-MI (p=0.80), HF symptoms (p=0.44) and ST-resolution (p=0.09). Separate analyses conducted in the subgroups of ST-elevation MI patients treated with either PCI or thrombolysis confirmed the findings found in the overall population. This meta-analysis shows that adenosine adjunctive therapy does not improve survival nor reduce the rates of re-MI and HF symptoms in patients with ACS treated with PCI or thrombolysis. The beneficial effect on post-procedural coronary flow was not associated with consistent advantages on clinical outcomes.Atherosclerosis 11/2011; 222(1):1-7. · 3.79 Impact Factor -
Article: Clinical efficacy and safety of intracoronary vs. intravenous abciximab administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Adjunctive therapy with abciximab has been proven to reduce mortality and reinfarction in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) referred to invasive management. Standard abciximab regimen consists of an intravenous (IV) bolus followed by a 12-h IV infusion. Experimental studies and small clinical trials suggest the superiority of intracoronary (IC) injection of abciximab over the IV route. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of IC vs. IV abciximab administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The primary endpoint was mortality, while recurrent myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were selected as secondary endpoints. The safety endpoint was the risk of major bleeding complications. A total of six randomized trials were finally included in the meta-analysis, enrolling a total of 1246 patients. Compared to IV route, IC abciximab was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval (CI)] =0.43 [0.20-0.94], p=0.03), and TVR (OR [95% CI] =0.53 [0.29-0.99], p=0.05). No differences in terms of recurrent myocardial infarction (OR [95% CI] =0.54 [0.23-1.28], p=0.17) or major bleeding complications (OR [95% CI] =0.91 [0.46-1.79], p=0.79) were observed between the two strategies. The present meta-analysis showed that IC administration of abciximab is associated with significant benefits in mortality at short-term follow-up compared to IV abciximab administration, without any excess of major bleeding in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI. However, further trials are warranted to establish the optimal strategy of abciximab treatment in this setting.Platelets 10/2011; 23(4):274-81. · 1.85 Impact Factor
