Open AccessThe comparative safety of abciximab versus eptifibatide in patients on dialysis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2)
Author(s) -
Sukul Devraj,
Seth Milan,
Schreiber Theodore,
Hanzel George,
Khandelwal Akshay,
Can Louis A.,
Lalonde Thomas A.,
Gurm Hitinder S.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of interventional cardiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.764
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1540-8183
pISSN - 0896-4327
DOI - 10.1111/joic.12388
Subject(s) - eptifibatide , medicine , conventional pci , abciximab , percutaneous coronary intervention , myocardial infarction , dialysis , propensity score matching , cardiology , surgery
Objectives We sought to evaluate the patterns of use and outcomes associated with eptifibatide and abciximab administration among dialysis patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background Contraindicated medications are frequently administered to dialysis patients undergoing PCI often resulting in adverse outcomes. Eptifibatide is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor that is often used during PCI and is contraindicated in dialysis. Methods We included dialysis patients who underwent PCI from January 2010 to September 2015 at 47 hospitals in Michigan. We compared outcomes between patients who received eptifibatide compared with abciximab. Both groups required concurrent treatment with unfractionated heparin only. In‐hospital outcomes included repeat PCI, bleeding, major bleeding, need for transfusion, and death. Optimal full matching was used to adjust for non‐random drug administration. Results Of 177 963 patients who underwent PCI, 4303 (2.4%) were on dialysis. Among those, 384 (8.9%) received eptifibatide and 100 (2.3%) received abciximab. Prior to matching, patients who received eptifibatide had higher pre‐procedural hemoglobin levels (11.3 g/dL vs. 10.7 g/dL; P < 0.001) and less frequently had a history of myocardial infarction (36.5% vs. 52.0%; P = 0.005). After matching, there were no significant differences in in‐hospital outcomes between eptifibatide and abciximab including transfusion (aOR: 1.15; 95%CI: 0.55‐2.40; P = 0.70), bleeding (1.47; 0.64‐3.40; P = 0.36), major bleeding (4.68; 0.42‐52.3; P = 0.21), repeat PCI (0.38; 0.03‐4.23; P = 0.43), and death (1.53; 0.2‐9.05; P = 0.64). Conclusions Despite being contraindicated in dialysis, eptifibatide was used approximately 3.5 times more frequently than abciximab among dialysis patients undergoing PCI but was associated with similar in‐hospital outcomes.