Abstract

Background

Although the efficacy of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIIb/IIIa) in reducing complication rates during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is well established, comparative studies assessing currently approved agents as administered in current practice are limited. We studied the clinical and length of stay (LOS) outcomes of patients undergoing PCI who received either abciximab or eptifibatide.

Methods

All patients undergoing elective, urgent, or emergency PCI at Mayo Clinic Rochester between November 17, 2000 and August 31, 2004 who received either abciximab or eptifibatide were included. Clinical, angiographic, and follow-up data were prospectively recorded in the Mayo Clinic PCI Registry; administrative data recorded LOS. We used logistic and Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the risk of adverse events and generalized linear modeling to predict LOS. Propensity score and standard risk adjustments were used to account for baseline differences.

Results

A total of 2123 PCI patients received eptifibatide and 951 received abciximab. The adjusted odds ratio for in-hospital death and myocardial infarction (MI) with eptifibatide was 0.80 (95% CI 0.56–1.14, P = 0.21) versus abciximab. Adjusted hazard ratios for death and MI and for death, MI, or target vessel revascularization during a median follow-up of 24.6 months were 0.84 (95% CI 0.68–1.02, P = 0.08) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.81–1.11, P = 0.53), respectively. Adjusted postprocedural LOS was similar at 3.4 days.

Conclusion

This large observational study found no evidence of a clinical or LOS advantage to physician choice of either abciximab or eptifibatide during PCI in contemporary practice.