Comparison of abciximab with "high-dose" tirofiban in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND: The TARGET study has been criticised for sub-optimal platelet inhibition with tirofiban. We aimed to compare a high-dose bolus regimen of tirofiban (hd-tirofiban) to standard dose of abciximab for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We assessed consecutive patients who received either hd-tirofiban (25 mcg/kg bolus followed by 0.15 mcg/kg/min infusion for 18 h) or standard dose abciximab. In-hospital and 6-month outcomes were obtained in all cases. RESULTS: Over an 18-month period, 109 patients who received hd-tirofiban were compared with 110 patients who received abciximab. Both hd-tirofiban and abciximab groups had acute coronary syndromes in 86% and 80% and diabetes in 10% and 13% respectively. Most patients had coronary stent implantation (96% vs. 98%). Thrombocytopenia (platelet count< 100,000) developed in 0.9% of patients receiving hd-tirofiban and 2% of patients receiving abciximab (p = 0.566). Bleeding requiring transfusion occurred in 7.3% and 3% of patients respectively (p = 0.118). Peri-procedural troponin rise was 0.9% in patients receiving hd-tirofiban and 5.5% in patients receiving abciximab (p = 0.07). MACE (Myocardial infarction, Stroke, Revascularisation and Death) at 6 months was 23% in the hd-tirofiban group and 20% in the abciximab group (p = 0.711). The pharmaceutical costs were AUD 322 for hd-tirofiban (one ampoule) and AUD 1,350 for abciximab (3 ampoules). CONCLUSION: There was a small increase in bleeding requiring transfusion and a lower rate of peri-procedural troponin rise in the hd-tirofiban group however, the overall 6-month MACE rates were similar in both groups. There was a considerable cost-saving with the use of hd-tirofiban. A prospective randomised trial of hd-tirofiban vs. abciximab is warranted.