Prehospital versus periprocedural abciximab in ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the potential benefit of an earliest possible out-of-hospital start of abciximab (ReoPro) therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI; Lilly, Bad Homburg, Germany) and planned primary percutaneous intervention compared with periprocedural abciximab treatment on reperfusion and clinical outcome.

METHODS

Randomization of one hundred and one patients with STEMI to prehospital or periprocedural abciximab treatment. Evaluation of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow, ST-segment resolution, myocardial blush grade, and maximal creatine kinase release before and after as well as clinical follow-up until 6 months after the index event.

RESULTS

Prehospital abciximab (group 1) was initiated a median of 101 min (37-165 min) earlier compared with periprocedural treatment (group 2). Initial TIMI 3 flow (24 vs. 15%, P=NS), ST-segment resolution before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (<30%: 33 vs. 46%, P=NS; >70%: 38 vs. 33%, P=NS), post-PCI myocardial blush grade 2 and 3 (72 vs. 75%, P=NS), maximal cardiac enzyme release (creatinine kinase MB median 77 U/l; range 33-137 vs. 74 U/l; range 39-143 U/l, P=NS), and 6 months follow-up (recurrent myocardial infarction or repeat coronary intervention, and PCI, need for coronary bypass surgery) did not differ significantly between both treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Prehospital intravenous administration of abciximab, although safe and feasible in a trained surrounding, does not add angiographic or clinical benefit to patients with STEMI.