Novel Approaches for Preventing or Limiting Events (Naples) III Trial: Randomized Comparison of Bivalirudin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Patients at Increased Risk of Bleeding Undergoing Transfemoral Elective Coronary Stenting

ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the safety and the efficacy of bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) alone in the subset of patients at increased risk of bleeding undergoing transfemoral elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundBivalirudin, a synthetic direct thrombin inhibitor, determines a significant decrease of in-hospital bleeding following PCI.MethodsThis is a single-center, investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Consecutive biomarker-negative patients at increased bleeding risk undergoing PCI through the femoral approach were randomized to UFH (UFH group; n = 419) or bivalirudin (bivalirudin group; n = 418). The primary endpoint was the rate of in-hospital major bleeding.ResultsThe primary endpoint occurred in 11 patients (2.6%) in the UFH group versus 14 patients (3.3%) in the bivalirudin group (odds ratio: 0.78; 95% confidence interval: 0.35 to 1.72; p = 0.54). Distribution of access-site and non–access-site bleeding was 18% and 82% in the UFH group versus 50% and 50% in the bivalirudin group (p = 0.10).ConclusionsThe results of this randomized study, carried out at a single institution, suggest that there is no difference in major bleeding rate between bivalirudin and UFH in increased-risk patients undergoing transfemoral PCI. (Novel Approaches in Preventing and Limiting Events III Trial: Bivalirudin in High-Risk Bleeding Patients [NAPLES III]; NCT01465503)     

Bleeding risk and outcomes of Bivalirudin versus Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors with targeted low-dose unfractionated Heparin in patients having percutaneous coronary intervention for either stable or unstable angina pectoris

For patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin was previously shown to significantly reduce bleeding complications at the cost of a modest increase in ischemic events compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). However, the excess bleeding in patients treated with UFH and GPIs may have been caused by excessively high UFH doses and increased activated clotting times. This study sought to determine the bleeding risk of targeted low-dose UFH with GPIs compared with bivalirudin in patients undergoing elective PCI. Of 1,205 patients undergoing elective PCI, 602 underwent PCI with adjunctive UFH and GPIs with the UFH dose targeted to an activated clotting time of approximately 250 seconds, and 603 patients matched for baseline characteristics underwent PCI with bivalirudin. Outcomes were analyzed for major bleeding (hematocrit decrease >15%, gastrointestinal bleed, or major hematoma) and 6-month major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, and target-lesion revascularization). The maximum activated clotting time achieved was 261.7 +/- 61.6 seconds in the UFH/GPI group and 355.4 +/- 66.6 in the bivalirudin group (p <0.001). In-hospital major bleeding rates were similar between groups (1.8% UFH/GPI vs 1.7% bivalirudin; p = 0.83), as were transfusion requirements (1.2% UFH/GPI vs 0.5% bivalirudin; p = 0.61). The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rate was also similar between groups (9.5% UFH/GPI vs 9.0% bivalirudin; p = 0.81). In conclusion, there were no significant differences in major bleeding and 6-month major adverse cardiac events for patients undergoing elective PCI treated with targeted low-dose UFH and GPIs compared with those treated with bivalirudin.     

Safety and Efficacy of Bivalirudin for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Rotational Atherectomy

Background: Although bivalirudin use in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results in less bleeding compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) use, its safety in patients undergoing rotational atherectomy (RA) is unknown. Methods: A cohort of 503 patients who underwent PCI with RA from 2000 to 2009 was studied. Patients receiving bivalirudin (n = 322) were compared to those (n = 181) treated with UFH ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) as PCI anticoagulation. Safety was assessed by the frequency of major bleeding (hematocrit drop ≥15%, intracerebral or gastro‐intestinal bleeding) and need for transfusion. Efficacy was assessed by a composite end‐point of in‐hospital death, Q wave myocardial infarction (MI) or urgent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Results: Those in the bivalirudin group were older, more hypertensive, and had greater body mass index. The UFH group was more likely to have prior MI, prior CABG, and an acute coronary syndrome at baseline. GPI was used in 93 patients (52%) of the UFH group. No difference was found between groups for the composite of death/Q wave MI/urgent CABG (1.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively, in bivalirudin vs. UFH group; P = 0.2). The frequency of major bleeding (2.2% vs. 1.7%; P = 0.8) or transfusion (5.6% vs. 8.7%; P = 0.9) was also similar between groups. After adjustment, bivalirudin use was not associated with a reduction in death/Q wave MI/urgent CABG, major bleeding, or transfusion compared to UFH. Conclusion: Bivalirudin use seems to be as safe and effective as UFH in patients undergoing RA. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:223–229)     

比伐卢定与肝素单药治疗用于经皮冠状动脉介入术安全性的Meta分析

目的 系统评价比伐卢定与肝素单药治疗用于经皮冠状动脉介入术的安全性.方法 计算机检索PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library、CBM、CNKI、维普和万方数据库（截止于2013年5月）获取相关临床对照试验.按照改良的Jadad量表评价纳入研究的质量,并采用RevMan5.2软件进行统计分析.结果 共选取14项符合评价标准的研究,其中观察研究试验9项,随机对照试验5项,对照试验29 226例.分析结果表明,比伐卢定组病死率低于肝素组（OR=0.65,95％ CI：0.43-0.99,P=0.04）;大出血发生率亦低于肝素组（OR=0.65,95％ CI：0.53-0.81,P=0.0001）.结论 比伐卢定用于经皮冠状动脉介入术的安全性优于肝素,大出血发生率和病死率降低.     

Bivalirudin in PCI: an overview of the REPLACE-2 trial

The Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 trial is one of the largest acute randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of two anticoagulant strategies during contemporary urgent or elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The direct thrombin inhibitor, bivalirudin, with provisional use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GP IIb/IIIa) inhibitor was compared to low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus planned GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. At 30-day follow-up, the primary quadruple composite endpoint (death, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent repeat revascularization, or in-hospital major bleeding) occurred in 9.2% of patients in the bivalirudin group versus 10.0% of patients in the UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor group. The secondary triple composite endpoint (death, MI, urgent repeat revascularization) occurred in 7.6% of patients in the bivalirudin group compared with 7.1% of patients in the UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor group. Both endpoints met formal statistical criteria for noninferiority to UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. By imputed comparison from historic GP IIb/IIIa trials between bivalirudin versus UFH alone, REPLACE-2 demonstrated that bivalirudin was superior to UFH alone with respect to the quadruple and triple composite endpoints. Furthermore, bivalirudin plus provisional GP IIb/IIIa blockade was associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital bleeding (2.4% vs. 4.1%; p < 0.001). At 6 months' follow-up, there was no significant difference in rates of death, MI, or revascularization between the two groups. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the early, nonsignificant 0.5% excess non-Q-wave MI in the bivalirudin group translated into later mortality. There was a trend toward decreased mortality at 6 months in the bivalirudin arm (0.95% vs. 1.35%; p = 0.148). The relative efficacy of bivalirudin versus UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor was similar in several high-risk subgroups, including patients with diabetes mellitus or prior MI, women, the elderly (age > 65 years), and patients undergoing PCI of bypass grafts. Bivalirudin represents an exciting alternative to UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor in patients undergoing urgent and elective PCI with similar suppression of ischemic events, fewer bleeding complications, and the potential for greater cost savings and ease of administration.     

Comparison of bivalirudin versus heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients undergoing an invasive strategy: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Objective

This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin plus glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Background

Pharmacotherapy for patients undergoing PCI includes bivalirudin, heparin, and GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors. We sought to compare ischemic and bleeding outcomes with bivalirudin versus heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients undergoing PCI.

Methods

A literature search was conducted to identify fully published randomized trials that compared bivalirudin with heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients undergoing PCI.

Results

A total of 19,772 patients in 5 clinical trials were included in the analysis (9785 patients received bivalirudin and 9987 patients received heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors during PCI). Anticoagulation with bivalirudin, as compared with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, results in no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.19), death (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.21), or urgent revascularization (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30). There is a trend towards a higher risk of myocardial infarction (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.28) but a significantly lower risk of TIMI major bleeding with bivalirudin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.69).

Conclusion

In patients who undergo PCI, anticoagulation with bivalirudin as compared with unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors results in similar ischemic adverse events but a reduction in major bleeding.     

The impact of unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin on patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Objectives

To compare bleeding and clinical events of patients with stable angina or silent ischemia undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or bivalirudin.

Background

Few direct comparisons between UFH monotherapy versus bivalirudin exist for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing PCI.

Methods

A prospective, investigator‐initiated, single‐center, single‐blinded, randomized trial of UFH versus bivalirudin was conducted. The primary endpoint was all bleeding (major and minor) from index‐hospitalization to 30 days post discharge. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (MACCE) and net adverse clinical events (NACE).

Results

Two‐hundred‐sixty patients were randomized for treatment with either UFH (n = 123) (47%) or bivalirudin (n = 137) (53%) There were no significant differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics between the two groups. Primary endpoint was similar in both groups (10.9% with bivalirudin vs 7.3% with UFH [P = 0.31]). Major bleeding rates were 5.8% and 2.4%, respectively (P = 0.17). There was a higher MACCE (3.5% vs 0%, P = 0.03) and NACE (8.8% vs 2.4%, P = 0.03) rate with bivalirudin compared to UFH, respectively. Bivalirudin had increased odds of NACE (OR = 3.65, 95% CI: 1.00‐13.3.6). Death and stent thrombosis rates were low and similar in both groups. Radial access was associated with fewer bleeding events compared to femoral access but not statistically significant (P = 0.29).

Conclusions

Among patients with stable angina or silent ischemia, there was no difference between UFH and bivalirudin in bleeding rates up to 30‐days post‐PCI. MACCE and NACE were higher among the bivalirudin group. Radial access was associated with a numerically lower rate of bleeding compared with femoral access.     

Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in peripheral vascular interventions

BackgroundA number of studies suggest that bivalirudin (BIV) is associated with similar efficacy but reduced bleeding when compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients undergoing peripheral vascular interventions (PVI).MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted with the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL. These were queried to identify studies comparing BIV with UFH in PVI. Study endpoints included total bleeding events, major and minor bleeding events and procedural success. Random-effects meta-analysis method was used to pool endpoint odds ratios (OR) for both UFH and BIV with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 12,335 patients (70.6 years; 59.7% male) were included from seven observational cohort studies (two prospective and five retrospective) comparing outcomes between BIV and UFH during PVI between January 2000 and May 2017. Compared with BIV, UFH was associated with significantly higher total bleeding, (OR 1.52 with 95% CI 1.11 to 2.09, p = 0.009), major bleeding (OR 1.38 with 95% CI 1.13 to 1.68, p = 0.002), and minor bleeding (OR 1.51 with 95% CI 1.09 to 2.08, p = 0.01). Procedural success rates were not different between the two groups (BIV vs HEP: OR 0.90 with 95% CI 0.49 to 1.64, p = 0.72)ConclusionCompared with BIV, UFH was associated with more bleeding when used during PVI. There was no significant difference in procedural success between the two anticoagulation strategies.     

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in patients receiving clopidogrel therapy after diagnostic angiography for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes

Objectives : This study sought to investigate if the efficacy of bivalirudin monotherapy is similar to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibition in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with clopidogrel following diagnostic angiography. Background : Prior trials have demonstrated that peri‐procedural bivalirudin therapy confers similar efficacy as heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, while lowering the risk of bleeding complications in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervnetions (PCI). However, the incidence of adverse ischemic events post‐PCI appeared to be higher in patients receiving bivalirudin without adequate pretreatment with clopidogrel. Methods : Using the 2004/2005 Cornell Angioplasty Registry, we evaluated 980 consecutive patients undergoing urgent PCI for UA/NSTEMI who were treated with either bivalirudin or UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. We excluded patients who were on chronic clopidogrel therapy or received clopidogrel pretreatment prior to angiography. All patients received a clopidogrel load (≥300‐mg dose) immediately before or after the PCI. Long‐term all‐cause mortality was obtained for 100% of patients, with a mean follow‐up of 24.6 ± 7.7 months. Results : Of the 980 study patients, 461 (47.0%) were treated with bivalirudin and 519 (53.0%) patients received UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. DES were used in 88% of PCI; 45% of patients presented with NSTEMI. The incidence of in‐hospital death (0.4% vs. 0.2%, P = 0.604), post‐procedural MI (6.9% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.351), and MACE including death, stroke, emergent CABG/PCI, and MI (7.6% vs. 5.8%, P = 0.304) were similar in patients treated with bivalirudin versus UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, respectively. The incidence of in‐hospital stent thrombosis was similar (0.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.104), while major (0.9% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.034) and minor bleeding (10.4% vs. 18.9%, P < 0.001) was reduced in the bivalirudin‐treated group. By two‐years of follow‐up, after propensity‐score adjusted multivariate Cox regression analysis, there was no significant difference in long‐term mortality between the two groups (HR 1.18; 95%CI 0.64–2.19, P = 0.598). Conclusions : In patients presenting with ACS and receiving clopidogrel treatment after angiography (before or within 30 min of PCI), peri‐procedural bivalirudin monotherapy suppresses acute and long‐term adverse events to a similar extent as does UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, while significantly lowering the risk of bleeding complications. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Outcomes of Patients with Coronary Artery Perforation Complicating Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Correlations with the Type of Adjunctive Antithrombotic Therapy: Pooled Analysis from REPLACE-2, ACUITY, and HORIZONS-AMI Trials

Background: The lack of a specific counteragent to bivalirudin may complicate the management of patients with coronary artery (CA) perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Aim: Assess outcomes of patients with CA perforation from three PCI trials comparing intravenous bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibition versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus GP IIb/IIIa.
Methods: A pooled analysis of patients treated with PCI in three randomized trials including REPLACE-2, ACUITY, and HORIZONS-AMI.
Results: Among a total of 12,921 patients, CA perforation occurred in 35 patients (0.27%). By multivariable analysis, baseline creatinine clearance was the only independent predictor of CA perforation (per 10 mL/min decrease, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]= 1.28 [1.11, 1.47], P = 0.0007). At 30 days, patients with versus without CA perforation had significantly (all P values ≤0.001) higher rates of 30-day mortality (11.4% vs. 1.0%), myocardial infarction (MI) [Q wave: 22.9% vs. 5.7%; non-Q wave: 17.1% vs. 4.9%], target vessel revascularization (TVR) [20.1% vs. 1.8%], and composite end-point of death/MI/TVR (31.4% vs. 7.8%). Patients assigned to bivalirudin versus UFH plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor had nonsignificantly lower rates of death (0% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.08), similar rates of MI (26.7% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.92), significantly lower rates of TVR (6.7% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.04), and similar rates of the composite end-point of death/MI/TVR (35.5% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.54).
Conclusion: In three PCI trials, treatment of patients experiencing CA perforation with adjunctive antithrombotic therapy of bivalirudin monotherapy was not associated with worse outcomes compared to treatment with UFH plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors.     

Heparin or enoxaparin anticoagulation for primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Objectives : The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety outcomes among patients receiving enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) while undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background : Primary PCI (pPCI) for ST elevation has traditionally been supported by UFH. The low molecular weight heparin enoxaparin may provide better outcomes when used for pPCI. Methods : Consecutive eligible patients (580) undergoing pPCI enrolled in the prospective electronic Pitié‐Salpêtrière registry of ischemic coronary syndromes (e‐PARIS) registry were grouped according to whether they received UFH or enoxaparin as the sole anticoagulant. Logistic regression modeling, propensity‐weighted adjustment, and sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate efficacy and safety endpoints for enoxaparin vs. UFH. Results : Enoxaparin was administered to 346 patients and UFH to 234 without ACT or anti‐Xa guided dose adjustment. PCI was performed through the radial artery in 90%, with frequent (75%) use of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists. Patients receiving enoxaparin were more likely to be therapeutically anticoagulated during the procedure (68% vs. 50%, P < 0.0001) and were less likely to experience death or recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) in hospital (adjusted OR 0.28 95% CI (0.12–0.68) or by 30 days (adjusted OR 0.35 95% CI 0.16–0.81). All cause mortality was also reduced in hospital (adjusted OR 0.32, 95% CI (0.12–0.85) and to 30 days (adjusted OR 0.40 95% CI 0.17–0.99). Other ischemic endpoints were similarly reduced with enoxaparin. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding events were numerically fewer among patients receiving enoxaparin (1.2% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.2). Conclusions : In patients with STEMI presenting for PCI, enoxaparin was associated with a reduction in all ischemic complications, more frequent therapeutic anticoagulation, and no increase in major bleeding when compared against unfractionated heparin. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of coronary DES and BMS in octogenarians: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective Uncertainty exists regarding the relative performance of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in octogenarians undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We undertook a meta-analysis to assess outcomes for DES and BMS in octogenarians undergoing PCI. Methods Electronic data bases of PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched. We included randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing DES and BMS in octogenarians receiving PCI. The methodological qualities of eligible trials were assessed using a “risk of bias” tool. The endpoints included all-cause death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), major bleeding, and stent thrombosis (ST). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for each endpoint. Results A total of one RCT and six observational studies were included and analyzed in this meta-analysis. All trials were of acceptable quality. At 30 days, compared with DES-treated patients, BMS-treated patients had a higher incidence of mortality (OR: 3.91, 95% CI: 1.10–13.91; P = 0.03). The OR for MACE (1.52, 95% CI: 0.56–4.17; P = 0.13), MI (0.81, 95% CI: 0.37–2.17; P = 0.23), TVR (0.75, 95% CI: 0.17–3.41; P = 0.41), major bleeding (0.77, 95% CI: 0.35–1.68; P = 0.43), and ST (1.44, 95% CI: 0.32–6.45; P = 0.33) did not reach statistical significance. At one year follow-up, the OR did not favor BMS over MACE (MACE, defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and TVR) (1.87; 95% CI: 1.22–2.87; P < 0.01), MI (1.91, 95% CI: 1.22–2.99; P < 0.01), TVR (3.08, 95% CI: 1.80–5.26; P < 0.01) and ST (3.37, 95% CI: 1.12–10.13; P < 0.01). The OR for mortality (1.51; 95% CI: 0.92–2.47; P = 0.10) and major bleeding (0.85, 95% CI: 0.47–1.55; P = 0.60) did not reach statistical significance. At > 1 year follow-up, the OR for all endpoints, including mortality, MACE, MI, TVR, major bleeding, and ST, did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that DES is associated with favorable outcomes as compared with BMS in octogenarians receiving PCI.     

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background

Bivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI). We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing PAVI.

Methods

We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary efficacy endpoints were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints include major and life‐threatening bleed according to VARC and BARC bleeding, blood transfusion, vascular complications, and acute kidney injury. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed using the Mantel‐Haenszel method.

Results

Three studies (n = 1690 patients) were included, one randomized trial and two observational studies. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for myocardial infarction (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.20‐0.87). There was no significant difference in all‐cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.62‐1.52), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.52‐2.05), stroke (OR 1.23, 95%CI 0.62‐2.46), vascular complications (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.70‐1.32), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.53‐2.00), blood transfusion (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45‐1.01), major and life‐threatening bleed (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.37‐1.49), and BARC bleeding (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.23‐1.18).

Conclusions

In patient undergoing aortic valve interventions, no difference was seen between the use of bivalirudin and heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent, except for a significant lower myocardial infarction events when bivalirudin was used. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm current results.

     

Bivalirudin in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention,is it the Anticoagulant of Choice?

For decades, unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been widely used in catheterization laboratories for anticoagulation for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The direct thrombin inhibitors, bivalirudin, has emerged as an alternative to UFH for PCI procedures, due to its lower bleeding risk. More recently, randomized trials and meta‐analyses questioned the efficacy of bivalirudin, and demonstrated that bivalirudin might be associated with a higher incidence of ischemic events and in particular stent thrombosis. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology of bivalirudin along with the clinical evidence comparing bivalirudin versus UFH in patients undergoing PCI for various indications.     

Re: One year perspective on COURAGE

Objectives: This study aimed to analyze the impact of replacing heparin with bivalirudin in octogenarians undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on postprocedure hemorrhage and 6‐month mortality. Background: Randomized trials comparing the antithrombin agent bivalirudin with heparin as the intraprocedural anticoagulant identify a reduction in periprocedural bleeding after PCI. Further, the occurrence of such bleeding seems to predict an increased risk of death or myocardial infarction both in‐hospital and at long‐term follow‐up. Importantly, elderly people who are at the greatest risk of post‐PCI bleeding complications are underrepresented in these randomized trials. Methods: From 2000 to 2007, 2,766 consecutive patients from our center who were ≥80 years of age underwent PCI with stent implantation and were included in this analysis. Bivalirudin was used in 1,207 (43.6%) patients and heparin in 1,559 (56.4%). We compared the rates of post‐PCI bleeding complications and 6‐month mortality. Results: The overall in‐hospital bleeding and 6‐month mortality rates were 4.6% and 11.8%, respectively. By multivariate logistic regression and after adjustment by propensity score analysis, bivalirudin was associated with a significant decrease in in‐hospital bleedings (HR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.23–0.73, P = 0.003). By multivariate Cox analysis, bivalirudin was also associated with a significant decrease (HR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.4–0.9, P = 0.01) and in‐hospital bleedings with a significant increase in the 6‐month mortality (HR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.6–3.9, P < 0.001). Conclusion: This study suggests an important subset for use of bivalirudin in lieu of heparin that will benefit the very elderly. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Safety of eptifibatide when added to bivalirudin during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BackgroundPatients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) represent a high-risk group for in-hospital adverse events and bleeding. The safety and outcomes of eptifibatide in addition to bivalirudin in this population have not been determined.MethodsOver an 11-year period, we identified 1849 STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), of which 1639 received bivalirudin monotherapy compared with 210 patients who received both bivalirudin and provisional eptifibatide. Safety of combination therapy was assessed by the occurrence of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. In-hospital event rates of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), and acute stent thrombosis were evaluated for efficacy. Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for significant differences between groups.ResultsPatients treated with bivalirudin plus eptifibatide, when compared with patients with bivalirudin monotherapy, had increased rates of cardiogenic shock (15.7% vs. 9.4%), aspiration thrombectomy (48.5% vs. 23.7%), pre-TIMI flow ≤ 1 (63.5% vs. 40%), and higher peak troponin I (93.65 ± 92.7 vs. 49.16 ± 81.59; all p < 0.01). These, however, were not associated with differences in the primary end point after adjusting for significant baseline and procedural characteristics (OR: 1.63; 95% CI, 0.90–2.96, p = 0.12). Importantly, TIMI major bleeding was not significantly different between groups (OR 1.78; 95% CI, 0.79–2.95, p = 0.20).ConclusionThe addition of eptifibatide to bivalirudin during primary PCI reflects a high-risk STEMI population. This therapy results in similar in-hospital outcomes without an increase in major bleeding. Therefore, when required, combination therapy may be considered in this population.     

比伐芦定在高出血风险患者介入治疗中抗凝疗效和安全性评价

目的：评价比伐芦定在高出血风险急性冠脉综合征（ACS）患者介入治疗中抗凝疗效和安全性。 方法：随机将入选的ACS患者分为比伐芦定组（104例）和肝素组（102例）,PCI术中分别采用比伐芦定和普通肝素进行抗凝治疗,并根据术中冠脉病变情况决定是否联用血小板糖蛋白IIb/IIIa拮抗剂(glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, GPI)。比较两组间一般情况及PCI相关资料,并对两组30天内的出血、支架血栓事件及主要不良心血管事件（MACE）进行统计分析。 结果：两组间支架血栓事件及MACE发生率无显著性差异（P>0,05）, 比伐芦定组出血发生率显著降低（P<0.05）,其中以轻度出血发生率减少更为显著,严重出血方面两组间无统计学性差异（1.9% vs2.9%,P>0.05）,但比伐芦定组有较低的严重出血风险趋势。 结论：比伐芦定在高出血风险的ACS患者的PCI治疗中抗凝治疗是安全有效的,并降低出血风险。     

Comparison of bivalirudin with heparin versus abciximab with heparin for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in “Real World” practice

ObjectiveWe aimed to carry out a “real world” comparison of bivalirudin plus unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus abciximab plus UFH in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).MethodsWe included patients who had abciximab or bivalirudin during their PPCI in our unit between Sept 2009 and Nov 2011.ResultsThe study included 516 and 484 patients in the bivalirudin and abciximab group respectively. There were more women in the bivalirudin group (29% vs 20%, p 0.001), while cardiogenic shock (6.4% vs 10.1%, p 0.04) and thrombectomy device use (76.6% vs 82%, p 0.04) were lower in the bivalirudin group.The primary composite end point of 30-day mortality, 30-day definite stent thrombosis or non-CABG major bleeding was similar between the bivalirudin and abciximab groups (7.8% vs 9.5%, OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.2, p 0.4). There was also no difference in in-hospital mortality (4.1% vs 4.3%, p 0.9), 30-day mortality (5.2% vs 6.4%, p 0.5), 1-year mortality (9.1% vs 9.9%, p 0.7), 30-day stent thrombosis (1% vs 0.4%, p 0.5) and non-CABG bleeding (2.7 vs 3.7%, p 0.4) between the bivalirudin and abciximab group respectively. On Cox proportional hazard analysis after adjusting for all the co-variates, the use of bivalirudin was not a predictor of 30-day mortality (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.7–1.9, p 0.7).ConclusionIn this “real-world” observational study, there was no significant difference in the clinical outcome of PPCI for patients who had abciximab or bivalirudin after initial pre-treatment with UFH.     

Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Prasugrel Versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose prasugrel compared to clopidogrel based on the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and major bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched up to May 2020 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model to estimate relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were MACE and major bleeding, respectively.

Results

Three RCTs (n?=?2884) and five observational studies (n?=?30,117) were included. A meta-analysis of RCTs revealed no significant differences in terms of MACE (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16) or major bleeding (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.65) between low-dose prasugrel and clopidogrel. A meta-analysis of observational studies revealed no significant difference in terms of MACE (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55) between the two groups, but low-dose prasugrel was associated with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.72).

Conclusions

We found that low-dose prasugrel was not associated with changes in MACE or major bleeding compared with clopidogrel in RCTs. However, analysis of data from observational studies revealed that low-dose prasugrel was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel.

     

Intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists reduce mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the impact of intravenous antagonists of the platelet IIb/IIIa receptor on the survival of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). BACKGROUND: Several trials have shown that intravenous antagonists of the platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and composite cardiac outcomes (death, MI, or revascularization) in patients undergoing PCI. However, individual studies have not had adequate power to examine differences in mortality. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of 19 randomized, placebo-controlled trials (20 comparisons, n = 20,137). Death was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included MI, composite cardiac outcomes, and major bleeding. RESULTS: Mortality was significantly reduced at 30 days (risk ratio [RR] 0.69 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.90]), at six months (RR 0.79 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.97]), and including longer follow-up (RR 0.79 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.94]), with no significant between-study heterogeneity. The relative risk reduction was largely similar in trials of patients with or without acute myocardial infarction (AMI), in trials continuing or discontinuing heparin after the procedure, and in trials using stents or another PCI as the intended primary procedure. Myocardial infarction and composite outcomes were significantly reduced (p < 0.001 for all) at 30 days and six months. Major bleeding was significantly increased only in trials where heparin infusion was continued after the procedure (RR 1.70 [95% CI 1.36 to 2.14]), although there was no excess bleeding when heparin was discontinued (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.85 to 1.24]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI, GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists confer a significant and sustained decrease (20% to 30%) in the risk of death.