Title of article :
Safety and Efficacy of Switching From Either Unfractionated Heparin or Enoxaparin to Bivalirudin in Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Managed With an Invasive Strategy: Results From the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgen
Author/Authors :
Harvey D. White، نويسنده , , Derek P. Chew، نويسنده , , James W. Hoekstra، نويسنده , , Chadwick D. Miller، نويسنده , , Charles V. Pollack Jr، نويسنده , , Frederick Feit، نويسنده , , A. Michael Lincoff، نويسنده , , Jean-Michel Bertrand، نويسنده , , Stuart Pocock، نويسنده , , James Ware، نويسنده , , E. Magnus Ohman، نويسنده , , Roxana Mehran، نويسنده , , Gregg W. Stone، نويسنده ,
Issue Information :
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2008
Pages :
8
From page :
1734
To page :
1741
Abstract :
Objectives The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients receiving consistent unfractionated heparin (UFH)/enoxaparin (ENOX) therapy and in those switched at randomization to bivalirudin monotherapy. Background Crossover between UFH and ENOX has been associated with increased adverse outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes. The ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY) trial demonstrated superior net clinical outcomes with similar rates of ischemia and significantly less major bleeding with bivalirudin monotherapy compared with UFH/ENOX plus a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor. It is unknown if these results would be preserved in patients switched from UFH/ENOX to bivalirudin monotherapy. Methods We compared composite ischemia, major bleeding, and net clinical outcomes at 30 days in patients receiving consistent UFH/ENOX therapy and in those switched at randomization from pre-treatment with UFH/ENOX to bivalirudin monotherapy. We also compared outcomes in patients naive to antithrombin therapy who were randomized to UFH/ENOX or bivalirudin monotherapy. Results Two thousand one hundred thirty-seven patients received consistent UFH/ENOX (UFH n = 1,294, ENOX n = 843), and 2,078 patients pre-treated with UFH/ENOX were switched to bivalirudin. Patients switching to bivalirudin had similar rates of ischemia (6.9% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.52), less major bleeding (2.8% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.01), and improved net clinical outcomes (9.2% vs. 11.9%, p < 0.01) than those on consistent UFH/ENOX plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. Patients naive to antithrombin therapy who were administered bivalirudin (n = 1,427) had similar rates of ischemia (6.2% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.47), less major bleeding (2.5% vs. 4.9%, p < 0.001), and similar net clinical outcomes (8.0% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.17) compared with naive patients administered UFH/ENOX plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (n = 1,462). Conclusions Switching from UFH/ENOX to bivalirudin monotherapy results in comparable ischemic outcomes and an approximately 50% reduction in major bleeding compared with consistent UFH/ENOX plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. Patients naive to antithrombin therapy administered bivalirudin monotherapy had a significant reduction in bleeding and similar rates of ischemia compared with naive patients initiated with UFH or ENOX plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor.
Keywords :
myocardial infarction , relative risk , PCI , Glycoprotein , Confidence interval , CABG , MI , Percutaneous coronary intervention , GP , Enoxaparin , CI , RR , coronary artery bypass grafting , UFH , unfractionated heparin , NSTE-ACS , non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes , ENOX
Journal title :
JACC (Journal of the American College of Cardiology)
Serial Year :
2008
Journal title :
JACC (Journal of the American College of Cardiology)
Record number :
473287
Link To Document :
بازگشت