Based on the outcome of the EPIC trial, and the sub-optimal results with a single abciximab bolus compared with bolus and infusion, it was recommended to prolong platelet inhibition by a 12h infusion of abciximab after the initial bolus administration in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, lower outcomes in the single bolus group in the EPIC study were entirely driven by the rates of urgent repeat revascularization at 30 days (3•6 percent bolus group versus 0•8 percent bolus and infusion group, p < 0.001), a complication probably related to the lack of stent use at that time. Importantly, there was no significant difference in terms of death or myocardial infarction (MI). Moreover, the use of clopidogrel in patients undergoing coronary stenting may currently reduce the need for infusion after a single abciximab bolus and it is likely that the soon to come availably of even more potent oral thienopyridines with faster onset of action such as prasugrel may further contribute to make post-bolus abciximab infusion of marginal clinical benefit. Yet, it is known that infusion, as compared to bolus only regimen increases the bleeding rate and the incidence of thrombocytopenia. Thus, bolus only regimen has the potential to maintain protection from ischemic complications in patients undergoing PCI while optimizing the safety profile of the treatment in the current era of intervention based on stents and thienopyridines with fast onset of action.