The impact of unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin on patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention |
| |
| Authors: | Fabio V. Lima MD MPH Luis Gruberg MD Usman Aslam MS CCRC Melissa Ramgadoo BSc CCRC Kydanis Clase BSc CCRC Alessandra Trevisan MPH Allen Jeremias MD MSc |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Medicine, Brown University Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island;2. Department of Cardiology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Northwell Health, Southside Hospital, Bay Shore, New York;3. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland;4. New York Institute of Technology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, New York;5. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York;6. Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York;7. Graduate Program in Public Health, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York;8. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, St. Francis Hospital, The Heart Hospital, Roslyn, New York |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | bivalirudin percutaneous coronary intervention stable angina unfractionated heparin |
|
|
