Dataset Information

Bivalirudin versus Unfractionated Heparin during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients at High Risk for Bleeding.

ABSTRACT: Low/medium-bleeding-risk populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) show significantly less bleeding with bivalirudin (BIV) than with unfractionated heparin (UFH), but this has not been established for high-risk patients. We performed a randomized double-blind prospective trial comparing efficacy and safety of BIV versus UFH combined with dual antiplatelet therapy during PCI among 100 high-risk patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or angina pectoris. The baseline characteristics were similar in both treatment arms. A radial approach was used in 84% of patients with a higher rate in the BIV group (90 vs. 78%, p < 0.05). Study end points were: major and minor bleeding, port-of-entry complications, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in-hospital, and at long-term follow-up. There was one case of major gastrointestinal bleeding in the BIV group and 7% minor bleeding complications in both categories. Rate of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PPMI) in the BIV group was twice that in the UFH group (20 vs. 10%, p < 0.16). In-hospital MACE rate was higher in BIV patients as well (12 vs. 2%, p = 0.1). By univariate analysis, the femoral approach was the predictor of PPMI and in-hospital MACE. In a multivariate model, the independent predictor of PPMI was previous MI (odds ratio, 7.7; p < 0.0158). PPMI was 49.7 times more likely with the femoral approach plus BIV than the nonfemoral approach plus UFH (p < 0.0021). At 41.5 ± 14 months' follow-up, end points did not significantly differ between the groups. In patients at high risk for bleeding undergoing PCI, BIV was not superior to UFH for bleeding complications, and early and late clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Feldman A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4244240 | biostudies-other | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1996 to May 2011.Study selectionRandomised 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 extractionSample size, characteristics, and outcomes, extracted independently and analysed.Data synthesis23 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).ConclusionEnoxaparin 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.

Project description:BackgroundPrediction of thrombotic and bleeding risk is important to optimize antithrombotic therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods and resultsWe developed the prediction rules for thrombotic and bleeding events separately in Japanese patients. Derivation and validation cohorts consisted of 4778 patients from CREDO-Kyoto (Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto) registry cohort 2 and 4669 patients from RESET (Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial) and NEXT (Nobori Biolimus-Eluting Versus Xience/Promus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial). Primary thrombotic and bleeding events were a composite of myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis or ischemic stroke, and GUSTO (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries) moderate or severe bleeding. The prediction rule for thrombosis assigned 2 points for severe chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease, and anemia and 1 point for age ?75 years, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and chronic total occlusion. The prediction rule for bleeding assigned 2 points for thrombocytopenia, severe chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure and 1 point for prior myocardial infarction, malignancy, and atrial fibrillation. In derivation and validation cohorts, area under the curve was 0.68 and 0.64, respectively, for thrombosis and 0.66 and 0.66, respectively, for bleeding. In the validation cohort, a high thrombosis risk score (?4, n=682) was associated with higher 3-year incidence of thrombotic events than a score that was intermediate (2-3, n=1178) or low (0-1, n=2809) (7.6%, 3.7%, versus 2.4%, respectively; P<0.0001). A high bleeding risk score (?3, n=666) was associated with higher incidence of bleeding than scores that were intermediate (1-2, n=1802) or low (0, n=2201) (8.8%, 4.1%, versus 2.3%, respectively; P<0.0001). Among 682 patients at high thrombotic risk, only 39 (5.7%) had low bleeding risk, whereas 401 (58.8%) had high bleeding risk with very high incidence of bleeding (11.6%).ConclusionsCREDO-Kyoto thrombotic and bleeding risk scores demonstrated modest accuracy in stratifying thrombotic and bleeding risks; however, a large proportion of patients at high thrombotic risk also had high bleeding risk.

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.

Dataset Information

Bivalirudin versus Unfractionated Heparin during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients at High Risk for Bleeding.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets