Intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the CICERO trial in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Administration of abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention is an effective adjunctive therapy in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Recent small-scaled studies have suggested that intracoronary administration of abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention is superior to conventional intravenous administration. This study has been designed to investigate whether intracoronary bolus administration of abciximab is more effective than intravenous bolus administration in improving myocardial perfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The Comparison of IntraCoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration during Emergency Reperfusion Of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (CICERO) trial is a single-center, prospective, randomized open-label trial with blinded evaluation of endpoints. A total of 530 patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are randomly assigned to either an intracoronary or intravenous bolus of weight-adjusted abciximab. The primary end point is the incidence of >70% ST-segment elevation resolution. Secondary end points consist of post-procedural residual ST-segment deviation, myocardial blush grade, distal embolization, enzymatic infarct size, in-hospital bleeding, and clinical outcome at 30 days and 1 year.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The CICERO trial is the first clinical trial to date to verify the effect of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of abciximab on myocardial perfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00927615</p

Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated–receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation. METHODS In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization. RESULTS Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan–Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P = 0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P = 0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage

ESICM LIVES 2016: part two : Milan, Italy. 1-5 October 2016.

Meeting abstrac