Outcomes and costs of abciximab versus eptifibatide for percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement are often prescribed glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. However, drug selection is often based on clinicians' preference and cost because few studies have directly compared abciximab and eptifibatide. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes and total hospital costs of abciximab and eptifibatide in patients undergoing stent placement during PCI in a real-world setting. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of 960 patients administered abciximab or eptifibatide for intracoronary stent placement between 1999 and 2001 at a tertiary care hospital. The primary outcome was bleeding, defined as major, moderate, or minor according to published criteria. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and the triple composite endpoint of those outcomes, thrombocytopenia, length-of-stay, and total hospital costs. Pearson's chi(2) analysis, Fisher's exact test, and ANOVA were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The frequency of bleeding complications based on severity was similar between abciximab and eptifibatide: major (2.4% vs 2.8%), moderate (12.4% vs 10.5%), and minor (4.0% vs 3.9%), respectively (p = 0.86). Secondary clinical outcomes were also similar between groups (p > 0.05). Total costs for hospitalization were significantly greater for abciximab compared with eptifibatide ($16,383 +/- 6799 vs $14,115 +/- 6285; p < 0.001). Drug acquisition costs were also significantly greater for abciximab compared with eptifibatide ($508 +/- 159 vs $465 +/- 263; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing stent placement during PCI, abciximab and eptifibatide are comparable in terms of safety and effectiveness despite significant differences in hospitalization and acquisition costs.