Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin (Biva) versus heparin in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. Our meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Biva compared with those of heparin in patients with diabetes undergoing PCI.We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major bleeding. Secondary efficacy endpoints were incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACE), myocardial infarction (MI), and death. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the efficacy and safety of Biva versus heparin.Eleven RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and 8428 patients were included. No significant difference was observed in the subgroup and overall risk of MACE (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.74-1.02; P?=?.08; I?=?39%) and NACE (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.61-1.07; P?=?.14; I?=?71%). Biva had an effect similar to that of heparin on the endpoint of death (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.56-1.02; P?=?.07; I?=?0) and MI (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.67-1.26; P?=?.59; I?=?0) but decreased the risk of major bleeding (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.52-0.75; P?

SUBMITTER: Zhang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5521879 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhang Juan J Yang Xinchun X

Medicine 20170701 29

<h4>Background</h4>The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin (Biva) versus heparin in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. Our meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Biva compared with those of heparin in patients with diabetes undergoing PCI.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary efficac ...[more]

PMID: 28723739

Similar Datasets

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.

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:BackgroundPercutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices (pMCSDs) are increasingly used on the assumption (but without solid proof) that their use will improve prognosis. A meta-analysis was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the benefits of pMCSDs in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (hr-PCI).MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trial.gov, and other databases to identify eligible studies. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality rates, reinfarction, and other adverse events using a random effect model.ResultsSixteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study. In the pooled analysis, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.61-1.66; RR 0.88 95% CI 0.66-1.17), reinfarction (RR 0.89 95% CI 0.69-1.14), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR 1.75 95% CI 0.47-6.42), heart failure (HF) (RR 0.54 95% CI 0.11-2.66), repeat revascularization (RR 0.73 95% CI 0.25-2.10), embolization (RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13-71.61), or arrhythmia (RR 2.81 95% CI 0.30-26.11). Compared with IABP, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 0.96 95% CI 0.71-1.29; RR 1.23 95% CI 0.88-1.72), reinfarction (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.68-1.42), stroke/TIA (RR 0.45 95% CI 0.1-1.95), acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.38-1.80), or arrhythmia (RR 1.52 95% CI 0.71-3.27), but LVADs were associated with a decrease in repeat revascularization (RR 0.26 95% CI 0.08-0.83). However, LVADs significantly increased the risk of bleeding compared with IABP (RR 2.85 95% CI 1.72-4.73).ConclusionsNeither LVADs nor IABP improves short or long-term survival in hr-PCI patients. LVADs are more likely to reduce repeat revascularization after PCI, but to increase the risk of bleeding events than IABP.

Project description:BackgroundTransfemoral approach (TFA) remains the most common vascular access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in many countries. However, in the last years several randomized trials compared transradial approach (TRA) with TFA in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but only few studies were powered to estimate rare events. The aim of the current study was to clarify whether TRA is superior to TFA approach in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of safety and efficacy of TRA in ACS setting was performed.Methods and resultsMedline, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, scientific session abstracts and relevant websites were searched. Data concerning the study design, patient characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were extracted. The primary endpoint was death. Secondary endpoints were: major bleeding and vascular complications. Outcomes were assessed within 30 days. Eleven randomized trials involving 9,202 patients were included. Compared with TFA, TRA significantly reduced the risk of death (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.94; p?=?0.016), but this finding was not confirmed in trial sequential analysis, indicating that sufficient evidence had not been yet reached. Furthermore, TRA compared with TFA reduced the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41-0.88; p?=?0.008) and vascular complications (OR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.28-0.46; p<0.001); these findings were supported by trial sequential analyses.ConclusionsIn patients with ACS undergoing PCI, a lower risk of death was observed with TRA. Nevertheless, the association between mortality and TRA in ACS setting should be interpreted with caution because it is based on insufficient evidence. However, because of the clinical relevance associated with major bleeding and vascular complications reduction, TRA should be recommended as first-choice vascular access in patients with ACS undergoing cardiac catheterization.

Project description:Importance:The antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease, in particular with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), poses a significant treatment dilemma in clinical practice. Objective:To study the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic regimens using a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in this population. Data Sources:PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing antithrombotic regimens. Study Selection:Four randomized studies were included (n?=?10?026; WOEST, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, and AUGUSTUS). Data Extraction and Synthesis:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and network meta-analysis between 4 regimens using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre hoc statistical analysis plan was written, and the review protocol was registered at PROSPERO. Data were analyzed between November 2018 and February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary safety outcome was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding; secondary safety outcomes were combined TIMI major and minor bleeding, trial-defined primary bleeding events, intracranial hemorrhage, and hospitalization. The primary efficacy outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); secondary efficacy outcomes were individual components of MACE. Results:The overall prevalence of ACS varied from 28% to 61%. The mean age ranged from 70 to 72 years; 20% to 29% of the trial population were women; and most patients were at high risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events. Compared with a regimen of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin), the odds ratios (ORs) for TIMI major bleeding were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.31-1.08) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.30-0.82) for non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) plus P2Y12 inhibitor, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.38-1.23) for NOAC plus DAPT. Compared with VKA plus DAPT, the ORs for MACE were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.60-1.46) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.71-1.47) for NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.60-1.45) for NOAC plus DAPT. Conclusions and Relevance:A regimen of NOACs plus P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with less bleeding compared with VKAs plus DAPT. Strategies omitting aspirin caused less bleeding, including intracranial bleeding, without significant difference in MACE, compared with strategies including aspirin. Our results support the use of NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor as the preferred regimen post-percutaneous coronary intervention for these high-risk patients with AF. A regimen of VKA plus DAPT should generally be avoided.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is known as the most effective treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, without proper therapy and patient management, stent thrombosis after PCI may lead to another myocardial infarction. In addition to aspirin and clopidogrel, tirofiban is often used as an antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. To date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) tirofiban administration for ACS patients undergoing PCI compared with intravenous (IV) administration. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the clinical efficiency and safety of IC versus intravenous (IV) tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Medline for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IC versus IV administration of tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI. We evaluated the effects of tirofiban on thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow after PCI, TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3 (TMP grade 3), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization (TVR), death, reinfarction and adverse drug effects (specifically bleeding events).ResultsSeven trials involving 1,027 patients were included in this meta-analysis. IC administration of tirofiban significantly increased TIMI grade 3 flow (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.37; P = 0.04) and TMP grade 3 (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.09 to 6.49; P = 0.03, I2 = 64%) while reducing MACE (OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.75; P = 0.002) compared with IV administration of tirofiban. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of TVR, death, reinfarction and the incidence of bleeding events between the two groups.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis supports the use of IC over IV administration of tirofiban in patients with ACS to improve TIMI flow, TMP flow and MACE. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of bleeding complications between the two groups.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets