|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 approaches for intra-coronary administration of tirofiban (aspiration catheter versus guiding catheter) in patients over 60 years of age undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It has been suggested that the administration of tirofiban by intra-coronary injection could promote drug absorption in the diseased region and enhance the inhibition of platelet aggregation, decreasing bleeding rates, but little is known about the comparative efficiency and safety of using guiding catheter versus aspiration catheter for delivery.Eighty-nine patients over 60 years of age with STEMI undergoing PCI were randomly divided into 2 groups according to the injection route for intracoronary administration of tirofiban [guiding catheter (n = 41) and aspiration catheter (n = 48)]. Baseline features, epicardial and myocardial perfusion, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), and bleeding rate were compared.No differences in age, gender, and history of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and so on were observed (P > .05). The patients in the aspiration catheter group generally had a higher incidence of cerebral vascular disease. Compared with those in the guiding catheter group, patients in the aspiration catheter group obtained more favorable myocardial perfusion (P < .05). In-hospital and at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups, the MACCE rate and frequency of bleeding events were similar between the 2 groups (P > .05).Intra-coronary delivery of tirofiban through aspiration catheter led to better myocardial perfusion in STEMI patients over 60 years of age undergoing PCI compared with intra-coronary injection of tirofiban through guiding catheter. The 2 delivery routes were associated with similar rates of MACCEs and bleeding events.