Comparison of Routine Versus Selective Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors Usage in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society)

The role of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) remains uncertain. Previous analyses compare PPCI outcomes with clopidogrel plus GPI, versus without GPI. This does not reflect modern contemporary PPCI practice with ticagrelor or prasugrel. Nor does it answer the important question faced daily by PPCI operators: should GPI be used routinely or selectively? We aim to determine whether a strategy of routine use of GPI in contemporary PPCI practice is superior to selective GPI use. A total of 110,327 consecutive PPCIs performed in England were prospectively recorded in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Database (2009 to 2015). The cohort was divided into routine and selective GPI usage groups based on the PPCI operator's strategy, defined as GPI used in >75% and <25% PPCIs, respectively. Overall, GPI use declined from 73.1% to 43.3% of PPCIs. Routine compared with selective GPI usage was associated with lower all-cause 1-year mortality: 9.7% versus 11.0%, p < 0.001. There was a consistent survival benefit for routine GPI usage as compared with selective GPI usage: univariable analysis (hazard ratio = 0.88 [95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.93], p < 0.001), multivariable analysis (hazard ratio = 0.82 [0.77 to 0.88], p < 0.001). For survival, there was no interaction between GPI usage and the type of P2Y12-inhibitor used. In conclusion, a strategy of routine GPI usage in patients who underwent PPCI was associated with lower all-cause mortality as compared with selective GPI usage. This benefit was maintained despite 44.3% of patients receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.