A randomized trial comparing primary infarct artery stenting with or without abciximab in acute myocardial infarction

AbstractObjectivesWe sought to evaluate the efficacy of abciximab as adjunctive therapy to routine infarct-related artery (IRA) stenting.BackgroundThe impact of abciximab on the efficacy of myocardial reperfusion and the outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing IRA stenting have not yet been defined.MethodsIn a randomized trial, we assigned 400 patients with AMI to undergo IRA stenting alone or stenting plus abciximab. The primary end point was a composite of death, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stroke at one month.ResultsThe incidence of the primary end point was lower in the abciximab group than in the stent only group (4.5% and 10.5%, respectively; p = 0.023), and randomization to abciximab was independently related to the risk of the primary end point (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.97; p = 0.041). Early ST-segment resolution was more frequent in the abciximab group (85% vs. 68%, p < 0.001). Infarct size, as assessed by one-month technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy, revealed smaller infarcts in the abciximab group. At six months, the cumulative difference in mortality between the groups increased (4.5% vs. 8%), and the incidence of the composite of six-month death and reinfarction was lower in the abciximab group than in the stent only group (5.5% and 13.5%, respectively; p = 0.006). Six-month repeat TVR and restenosis rates were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAbciximab plus IRA stenting should be considered the routine reperfusion strategy in patients with AMI undergoing primary percutaneous mechanical revascularization, especially in high-risk patients