ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the effect of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of tiroifban for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods A search was retrieved from Pubmed, EMbase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Cochrane Library to systematically collect the randomized controlled trials of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of tirofiban for the patients with ACS undergoing PCI. The data was extracted from the included studies and analyzed by Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan5.2 software. Results Twenty-five studies involving 2516 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results of meta-analysis showed that thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 lfow (RR 1.15, 95%CI 1.07-1.23, P=0.0001) were signiifcantly more often achieved in the patients by intracoronary administration of tiroifban (IC group) than those by intravenous strategy (IV group). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) values in a week after PCI which were evaluated by Cardiac Ultrasound were statistically significant between the two groups (WMD 2.69, 95%CI 0.14-5.25, P=0.04). LVEF values in IC group were increased by an average of 2.69% compared with group IV. Intracoronary administration resulted in a reduced incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 30-day follow-up (RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.38-0.69, P < 0.0001). However, the incidence of bleeding complications was not statistically signiifcant between the two groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76-1.19, P=0.64). Conclusions Compared with intravenous strategy, intracoronary administration of tiroifban can be more effective in increasing coronary blood lfow and microvascular perfusion, more signiifcantly in reducing the incidence of MACE at 30-day follow-up and improving the prognosis after PCI without increasing the risk of bleeding.