Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Medline and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1996 to May 2011.

Study selection

Randomised and non-randomised studies comparing enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention and reporting on both mortality (efficacy end point) and major bleeding (safety end point) outcomes.

Data extraction

Sample size, characteristics, and outcomes, extracted independently and analysed.

Data synthesis

23 trials representing 30,966 patients were identified, including 10,243 patients (33.1%) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction, 8750 (28.2%) undergoing secondary percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis, and 11,973 (38.7%) with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 13,943 patients (45.0%) received enoxaparin and 17,023 (55.0%) unfractionated heparin. Enoxaparin was associated with significant reductions in death (relative risk 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.76; P<0.001), the composite of death or myocardial infarction (0.68, 0.57 to 0.81; P<0.001), and complications of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.6 to 0.85; P<0.001), and a reduction in incidence of major bleeding (0.80, 0.68 to 0.95; P=0.009). In patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the reduction in death (0.52, 0.42 to 0.64; P<0.001) was particularly significant and associated with a reduction in major bleeding (0.72, 0.56 to 0.93; P=0.01).

Conclusion

Enoxaparin seems to be superior to unfractionated heparin in reducing mortality and bleeding outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention and particularly in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction.

SUBMITTER: Silvain J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3271999 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObesity is a frequent and significant risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among hospitalized adults. Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis can help prevent VTE, but real-world effectiveness, safety, and costs among inpatients with obesity are unknown.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare clinical and economic outcomes among adult medical inpatients with obesity who received thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH).MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed using the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database, which covers more than 850 hospitals in the United States. Patients included were ≥18 years old, had a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of obesity [International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnosis codes 278.01, 278.02, and 278.03; ICD-10 diagnosis codes E66.0x, E66.1, E66.2, E66.8, and E66.9], received ≥1 thromboprophylactic dose of enoxaparin (≤40 mg/day) or UFH (≤15,000 IU/day) during the index hospitalization, stayed ≥6 days in the hospital, and were discharged between 01 January 2010, and 30 September 2016. We excluded surgical patients, patients with pre-existing VTE, and those who received higher (treatment-level) doses or multiple types of anticoagulants. Multivariable regression models were constructed to compare enoxaparin with UFH based on the incidence of VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE)---------related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, treatment costs, and total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and the 90 days after index discharge (readmission period).ResultsAmong 67,193 inpatients who met the selection criteria, 44,367 (66%) and 22,826 (34%) received enoxaparin and UFH, respectively, during their index hospitalization. Demographic, visit-related, clinical, and hospital characteristics differed significantly between groups. Enoxaparin during index hospitalization was associated with 29%, 73%, 30%, and 39% decreases in the adjusted odds of VTE, PE-related mortality, in-hospital mortality, and major bleeding, respectively, compared with UFH (all p < 0.002). Compared with UFH, enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower total hospitalization costs during the index hospitalization and readmission periods.ConclusionsAmong adult inpatients with obesity, primary thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin compared with UFH was associated with significantly lower risks of in-hospital VTE, major bleeding, PE-related mortality, overall in-hospital mortality, and hospitalization costs.

Project description:Percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin plus bail-out glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors has been shown to be as effective as unfractionated heparin plus routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in preventing cardiac ischemic events, but with a lower bleeding risk. It is unknown whether bivalirudin would have the same beneficial effects if compared with heparin when the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was similar between treatment arms. We searched the MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from inception until March 2015 for randomized trials that compared bivalirudin to heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We required that the intended use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was similar between the study groups. Summary estimates were principally constructed by the Peto method. Fifteen trials met our inclusion criteria, which yielded 25,824 patients. Bivalirudin versus heparin was associated with an increased hazard of stent thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.92, P = .002, I2 = 16.9%), with a similar hazard of myocardial infarction (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.22, P = .11, I2 = 35.8%), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.08, P = .21, I2 = 31.5%) and major adverse cardiac events (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.14, P = .46, I2 = 53.9%). Bivalirudin was associated with a reduced hazard of major bleeding (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.92, P = .001, I2 = 63.5%). The dose of heparin in the control arm modified this association; when the dose of unfractionated heparin in the control arm was ≥ 100 units/kg, bivalirudin was associated with a reduction in major bleeding (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45-0.68, P < .0001), but when the dose of unfractionated heparin was ≤ 75 units/kg, bivalirudin was not associated with reduction in bleeding (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.31, P = .36). Among patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin was associated with an increased hazard of stent thrombosis. Bivalirudin may be associated with a reduced hazard of major bleeding; however, this benefit was no longer apparent when compared with a dose of unfractionated heparin ≤ 75 units/kg.