Use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in myocardial infarction in the Russian Federation, according to the Russian Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction REGION-IM

Aim. To analyze the frequency, indications, and outcomes of using glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Russia based on data from a multicenter registry.

Material and methods. This work is part of the REGION-MI (Russian Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction) multicenter retrospective-prospective observational study, which included patients admitted to hospitals in 45 regions of Russia with a diagnosis of AMI from 2020 to 2023. The decision to prescribe glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was made by physicians. The observation period was 12 months, the following outcomes were recorded: cardiovascular events (relapse/repeated AMI, stent thrombosis, revascularisation), hemorrhagic complications, and in-hospital and all-cause mortality during the entire observation period. The study is conducted on the "Quinta" platform. Statistical data processing was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics ver.24.

Results. A total of 10,884 patients were included in the registry, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were prescribed to 114 patients (1%), all of whom underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while among patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, the frequency of IIb/IIIa inhibitors was 0.5%, among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients — 1.3%. Eptifibatide was used most often (67.5%), tirofiban was prescribed in 28.9% of cases, abciximab — 2.6%, framon — 0.9%. The most common indication for prescribing drugs were complications of PCI, in particular — distal embolism. There was a higher incidence of cardiogenic shock and multivessel revascularization in the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor group. In-hospital mortality and adverse events within 180 days (death, cardiovascular events) did not differ between patients who did and did not receive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in this study was associated with an increased risk of all in-hospital bleeding (odds ratio 9.656, confidence interval 2.859-3,894, p <0.001). Other predictors of in-hospital bleeding were: prescription of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, chronic kidney disease with glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m², body weight less than 60 kg.

Conclusion. We observed a very low frequency of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors usage in Russia, while these drugs are used mainly for complications of PCI in the group of patients with the highest risk — with cardiogenic shock, multivessel revascularisation, and complications of the procedure, which can have impact on the outcomes. Further research is needed to develop an optimal protocol for glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors administration in AMI.

1. Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2024;13(1):55-161. DOI:10.1093/ehjacc/zuad107.

2. Sarkar A, Grigg WS, Lee JJ. TIMI Grade Flow. [Updated 2023 Apr 24]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482412/

3. Kaur G, Baghdasaryan P, Natarajan B, et al. Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Coronary No-Reflow Phenomenon. Int J Angiol. 2021;30(1):15-21. DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1725979.

4. Annibali G, Scrocca I, Aranzulla TC, et al. "No-Reflow" Phenomenon: A Contem­porary Review. J Clin Med. 2022; 16;11(8):2233. DOI:10.3390/jcm11082233.

5. Gerasimov AM, Tereshchenko AS, Merkulov EV, Samko AN. No-reflow pheno­menon in the practice of an endovascular surgeon. Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine. 2014;(1):51-5 (In Russ.) DOI:10.20862/0042-4676-2014-0-1-51-55.

6. Chi G, AlKhalfan F, Lee JJ, et al. Factors associated with early, late, and very late stent thrombosis among patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary stent placement: analysis from the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024;10:1269011. DOI:10.3389/fcvm.2023.1269011.

7. Kamenik M, Widimsky P. Stent thrombosis during and after acute coronary syndromes: patient-related factors and operator-related factors. Anatol J Cardiol. 2020;24(4):274-9. DOI:10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2020.69679.

8. Yip HK, Chen MC, Chang HW, et al. Angiographic morphologic features of infarct-related arteries and timely reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction. Chest. 2002;122(4):1322-32. DOI:10.1378/chest.122.4.1322.

9. Yang L, Cong H, Lu Y, et al. Prediction of no-reflow phenomenon in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;26;99(26):e20152. DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000020152.

10. Fajar JK, Heriansyah T, Rohman MS. The predictors of no reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis. Indian Heart J. 2018; 70 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S406-S418. DOI:10.1016/j.ihj.2018.01.032.

11. Wang Q, Shen H, Mao H, et al. Shock Index on Admission Is Associated with Coronary Slow/No Reflow in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Emergent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J Intervent Cardiol. 2019;25;2019:7873468. DOI:10.1155/2019/7873468.

12. Tasar O, Karabay AK, Oduncu V, Kirma C. Predictors and outcomes of no-reflow phenomenon in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Coron Artery Dis. 2019;30(4):270-6. DOI:10.1097/MCA.0000000000000726.

13. Ndrepepa G, Tiroch K, Fusaro M, et al. 5-Year prognostic value of no-reflow phenomenon after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(21):2383-9. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.12.054.

14. Jolly SS, Cairns J, Yusuf S, et al. Design and rationale of the TOTAL trial: A randomized trial of routine aspiration ThrOmbecTomy with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus PCI ALone in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI. Am Heart J. 2014;167(3):315-21. DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2013.12.002.

15. Sukhinina TS, Pevzner DV, Mazurov AV, et al. The role of platelet glycopro­tein IIb / IIIa inhibitors in current treatment of acute coronary syndrome. Kardiologiia. 2022;62(4):64-72 (In Russ.) DOI:10.18087/cardio.2022.4.n2020.

16. Centurión OA. Current role of platelet glycoprotein iib/iiia inhibition in the therapeutic management of acute coronary syndromes in the stent era. J Cardiol Curr Res. 2016;5(4):00175. DOI:10.15406/jccr.2016.05.00175.

17. Singh HS, Dangas GD, Guagliumi G, et al. Comparison of Abciximab Versus Eptifibatide During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (from the HORIZONS-AMI Trial). Am J Cardiol. 2012;110(7):940-7. DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.026.

18. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Percoco G, Bolognese L, et al; Multicentre Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban vs Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study (MULTISTRATEGY) Investigators. Comparison of angioplasty with infusion of tirofiban or abciximab and with implantation of sirolimus-eluting or uncoated stents for acute myocardial infarction: the MULTISTRATEGY Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2008;16;299(15):1788-99. DOI:10.1001/jama.299.15.joc80026.

19. Revilla-Martí P, Linares-Vicente JA, Martínez Labuena A, et al. Efficacy and safety of abciximab versus tirofiban in addition to ticagrelor in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention. Platelets. 2022;17;33(2):265-72. DOI:10.1080/09537104.2021.1881953.

20. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of effect of eptifibatide on complications of percutaneous coronary intervention: IMPACT-II. Integrilin to Minimise Platelet Aggregation and Coronary Thrombosis-II. Lancet. 1997;17;349(9063):1422-8. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)10172-0.

21. O’Shea JC, Hafley GE, Greenberg S, et al; ESPRIT Investigators (Enhanced Suppression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Therapy trial). Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa integrin blockade with eptifibatide in coronary stent intervention: The ESPRIT Trial: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;285(19):2468-73. DOI:10.1001/jama.285.19.2468.

22. Jalalian R, Golshani S, Farsavian H, et al. Efficacy of intravenous eptifibatide in primary percutaneous coronary intervention patients. J Med Life. 2021;14(3):376-82. DOI:10.25122/jml-2021-0035.

23. Writing Committee Members; Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(2):e21-e129. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006.

24. Obaya M, Yehia M, Hamed L, Fattah AA. Comparative study between elderly and younger patients with acute coronary syndrome. Egypt J Crit Care Med. 2015;3(2–3):69-75. DOI:10.1016/j.ejccm.2015.12.002.

25. Abtan J, Ducrocq G, Steg PG, et al; MPH on Behalf of the CHAMPION PHOENIX Investigators. Characteristics and outcomes of patients requiring bailout use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors for thrombotic complications of percutaneous coronary intervention: An analysis from the CHAMPION PHOENIX trial. Int J Cardiol. 2019;278:217-22. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.11.114.

26. Boytsov SA, Shakhnovich RM. Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction. REGION-MI — Russian Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction. Kardiologiia. 2021;61(6):41-51 (In Russ.) DOI:10.18087/cardio.2021.6.n1595.

27. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2019;(3):107-38. (In Russ.) DOI:10.15829/1560-4071-2019-3-107-138.

28. 2020 Clinical practice guidelines for Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2020;25(11):4103. (In Russ.) DOI:10.15829/29/1560-4071-2020-4103.

29. Blanchart K, Heudel T, Ardouin P, et al. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors use in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction in patients pre-treated with newer P2Y12 inhibitors. Clin Cardiol. 2021;44(8):1080-8. DOI:10.1002/clc.23654.

30. Gellatly RM, Connell C, Tan C, et al. Trends of Use and Outcomes Associated With Glycoprotein-IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Ann Pharmacother. 2020;54(5):414-22. DOI:10.1177/1060028019889550.

31. Ludman PF; British Cardiovascular Intervention Society. British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Registry for audit and quality assessment of percutaneous coronary interventions in the United Kingdom. Heart. 2011;97(16):1293-7. DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2011-300299.

32. Rakowski T, Węgiel M, Malinowski KP et al. Thrombus containing lesions strategies during primary percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from ORPKI National Registry. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2023;56(1):156-63. DOI:10.1007/s11239-023-02811-z.

33. Dannenberg L, Wolff G, Naguib D, et al. Safety and efficacy of Tirofiban in ­STEMI-patients. Int J Cardiol. 2019;274:35-9. DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.09.052.

34. Saleiro C, Teixeira R, De Campos D, et al. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. J Intensive Care. 2020;8(1):85. DOI:10.1186/s40560-020-00502-y.

35. Urban P, Mehran R, Colleran R, et al. Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(31):2632-53. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz372.

36. Iqbal O, Walenga JW, Lewis BE, Bakhos M. Bleeding complications with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Drugs Today (Barc). 2000;36(8):503-14. DOI:10.1358/dot.2000.36.8.591832.

37. Horwitz PA, Berlin JA, Sauer WH, et al; Registry Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography Interventions. Bleeding risk of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists in broad-based practice (results from the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2003;91(7):803-6. DOI:10.1016/s0002-9149(03)00012-2.

38. Germing A, Bojara W, Lawo T, et al. Bleeding complications associated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients 80 years of age and older undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Exp Clin Cardiol. 2010;15(3):e57-60.

39. Biever PM, Staudacher DL, Degott J, et al. Influence of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors on bleeding events after successful resuscitation and percutaneous coronary intervention. Clin Res Cardiol. 2020;109(3):385-92. DOI:10.1007/s00392-019-01518-7.