Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRathod, KSen_US
dc.contributor.authorAntoniou, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorAvari, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorDing, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorWright, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorKnight, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorJain, AKen_US
dc.contributor.authorMathur, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorSmith, EJen_US
dc.contributor.authorWeerackody, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorWragg, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorJones, DAen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-07T14:03:40Z
dc.date.available2017-09-04en_US
dc.date.issued2017-01en_US
dc.date.submitted2018-02-19T13:33:53.119Z
dc.identifier.issn2048-0040en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1177/2048004017734431
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/34430
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are recommended by guidelines in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. There are few studies directly comparing these agents. The aim of this study was to assess whether eptifibatide is a safe and cost-effective alternative to abciximab in the treatment of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of 3863 patients who received a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor whilst undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention from 2007 to 2014. Patients who did not receive a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor were excluded. Time to first major adverse cardiac event defined as death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke or target vessel revascularization, and total hospital costs were compared between the groups. RESULTS: In all, 1741 patients received abciximab with 2122 receiving eptifibatide. Patients who received eptifibatide had higher rates of previous MI/percutaneous coronary intervention and were more likely to undergo a procedure from the radial route. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant difference in the 1-year event rates between patients given eptifibatide versus abciximab (p = 0.201). Age-adjusted Cox analysis demonstrated no difference in 1-year outcome between abciximab and eptifibatide (hazard ratio: 0.83; 95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.39), which persisted after multivariate adjustment (hazard ratio: 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.79-1.56) including the incorporation of a propensity score (hazard ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.71-1.44). Eptifbatide was associated with significant cost savings being 87% cheaper overall compared to abciximab (on average £650 cheaper per patient and saving approximately £950,000). CONCLUSION: This observational data suggest that eptifibatide is associated with similar outcomes and significant cost savings compared to abciximab when used in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.en_US
dc.format.extent2048004017734431 - ?en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJRSM Cardiovasc Disen_US
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjectAcute coronary syndromesen_US
dc.subjectaetiologyen_US
dc.subjectcardiologyen_US
dc.subjectcardiovascular pharmacologyen_US
dc.subjecttreatmenten_US
dc.titleEptifibatide is associated with significant cost savings and similar clinical outcomes to abciximab when used during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: An observational cohort study of 3863 patients.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder2017. The authors
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/2048004017734431en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29051816en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
pubs.volume6en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-09-04en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record