Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM This systematic review with meta-analysis sought to compare the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) vs. intravenous (IV) administration of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors on clinical outcomes following per-cutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome). METHODS Medline, Embase, Elsevier, and Sciences online databases as well as Google Scholar literature were used to select appropriate studies with randomised controlled design. The primary end-points were mortality and target vessel revascularisation (TVR), whereas the secondary end points were incidence of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction score 3 flow (TIMI 3 flow means complete perfusion in distal coronary artery bed), re-myocardial infarction (re-MI), major bleeding, stent thrombosis left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and heart failure (HF). The literature search of all major databases retrieved 1006 stud-ies. After screening, a total of 18 trials (5812 patients) were identified with reported outcomes. RESULTS Pooled analysis showed IC administration of GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors can significantly increase LVEF (WMD 4.97; 95% CI 3.34-6.60; p = 0.000) and the incidence of TIMI 3 flow (OR of 0.77; 95% CI 0.64-0.92; p = 0.005), and significantly decrease in incidence of HF (OR of 1.927; 95% CI 1.189-3.124; p = 0.008). Incidences of TVR, re-MI, major bleeding, stent thrombosis, and mortality showed no significant differences between the IC and IV groups. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the most appropriate route of administration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors for patients with acute coronary syndromes appeared to be an IC injection that could increase LVEF and TIMI 3 flow and decrease the incidence of HF. Furthermore, the IC administration was not associated with increased adverse event rates when compared to IV injection.