American Society of Hirudotherapy

Effectiveness of early coronary angioplasty and abciximab for failed thrombolysis (reteplase or alteplase) during acute myocardial infarction (results from the GUSTO-III trial). Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries.

Research article published in The American journal of cardiology (1999)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialClinical TrialsDrug DevelopmentMiller JM et al. · The American journal of cardiology, 1999

Abstract

We evaluated the effects of abciximab treatment during early angioplasty after clinically failed thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. In the Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries (GUSTO-III) trial of reteplase versus alteplase for acute infarction (n = 15,059), 392 patients underwent angioplasty a median of 3.5 hours after thrombolysis and had complete procedural data. We compared 30-day mortality and in-hospital outcomes between patients who received abciximab (n = 83) and those who did not (n = 309), and (among patients given abciximab) between those randomized to alteplase versus reteplase. Patients given abciximab had anterior infarction less often, but were more often in Killip classes III or IV. The 30-day mortality rate tended to be lower with abciximab (3.6% vs 9.7%, p = 0.076), more so after adjustment for baseline differences (p = 0.042). The composite of death, stroke, or reinfarction did not differ significantly with abciximab treatment (12% vs 14%, p = 0.7), but it occurred less often among abciximab-treated patients who had been randomized to reteplase (n = 55) versus alteplase (n = 28) (7% vs 21%, p = 0.08). Severe bleeding was increased among abciximab-treated patients (3.6% vs 1.0%, p = 0.08), despite less heparin use. No intracranial hemorrhages occurred with abciximab. The use of abciximab for early angioplasty after clinically failed thrombolysis resulted in trends toward lower 30-day mortality and increased bleeding.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeClinical TrialJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsAbciximabAnalysis of VarianceAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryAntibodies, MonoclonalAnticoagulantsChi-Square DistributionCoronary AngiographyFemaleFibrinolytic AgentsHumansImmunoglobulin Fab FragmentsMale

Summary

We evaluated the effects of abciximab treatment during early angioplasty after clinically failed thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This observational subgroup analysis of the GUSTO-III trial examined 392 patients who underwent angioplasty after clinically failed thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction, comparing those given the platelet GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab (n=83) with those not given it (n=309); abciximab use was associated with a trend toward lower 30-day mortality (3.6% vs 9.7%, p=0.076; p=0.042 after adjustment) but also increased severe bleeding (3.6% vs 1.0%, p=0.08). For ASH, it is contextual evidence on how antithrombotic/antiplatelet agents trade ischemic benefit against bleeding risk, the same therapeutic balance that defines the medicinal-leech secretome's antiplatelet and anticoagulant components. Caveat: this is a non-randomized retrospective subgroup comparison (abciximab was not randomly assigned), the differences were mostly statistical trends, and it has no direct connection to leeches or hirudotherapy beyond shared antithrombotic pharmacology.

Citation

Effectiveness of early coronary angioplasty and abciximab for failed thrombolysis (reteplase or alteplase) during acute myocardial infarction (results from the GUSTO-III trial). Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries.

Miller JM et al. · The American journal of cardiology, 1999

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.