Therapeutic approach to unstable angina: nitroglycerin, heparin, and combined therapy

Heparin versus placebo for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) represent a spectrum of disease including unstable angina and non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Despite treatment with aspirin, beta-blockers and nitroglycerin, unstable angina/NSTEMI is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although evidence suggests that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is more efficacious compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), there is limited data to support the role of heparins as a drug class in the treatment of NSTEACS. This is an update of a review last published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of heparins (UFH and LMWH) compared with placebo for the treatment of patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or NSTEMI).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Heart Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to January week 1 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to 2014 week 02), CINAHL (1937 to 15 January 2014) and LILACS (1982 to 15 January 2014). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of parenteral UFH or LMWH versus placebo in people with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or NSTEMI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed quality of studies and independently extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no new included studies for this update. Eight studies (3118 participants) were included in this review. We found no evidence for difference in overall mortality between the groups treated with heparin and placebo (risk ratio (RR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.98). Heparins compared with placebo, reduced the occurrence of myocardial infarction in patients with unstable angina and NSTEMI (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63, number needed to benefit (NNTB) = 33). There was a trend towards more major bleeds in the heparin studies compared to control studies (RR = 2.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.60). From a limited data set, there appeared to be no difference between patients treated with heparins compared to control in the occurrence of thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.24). Assessment of overall risk of bias in these studies was limited as most of the studies did not give sufficient detail to allow assessment of potential risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, patients treated with heparins had a similar risk of mortality, revascularization, recurrent angina, and thrombocytopenia. However, those treated with heparins had a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and a higher incidence of minor bleeding. Overall, the evidence assessed in this review was classified as low quality according to the GRADE approach. The results presented in this review must therefore be interpreted with caution.

Heparin versus placebo for acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a spectrum of disease including unstable angina (UA) and non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Despite treatment with aspirin, beta-blockers and nitroglycerin, UA/NSTEMI is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although emerging evidence suggests that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is more efficacious compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), there is limited data to support the role of heparins as a drug class in the treatment of ACS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of heparins (UFH and LMWH) compared with placebo for the treatment of patients with ACS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2002), EMBASE (1980 to May 2002) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2002). Authors of included studies and pharmaceutical industry representatives were contacted to determine if unpublished studies which met the inclusion criteria were available.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of parenteral UFH or LMWH versus placebo in people with ACS (UA or NSTEMI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed quality of studies. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted to verify and clarify missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (3118 participants) were included in this review. We found no evidence for difference in overall mortality between the groups treated with heparin and placebo (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.98). Heparins reduced the occurrence of MI (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63, NNT = 33). An increase in the incidence of minor bleeds (RR = 6.80, 95% CI 1.23 to 37.49, NNH = 17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, patients treated with heparins had similar risk of mortality, revascularization, recurrent angina, major bleeding and thrombocytopenia. However, those treated with heparins had decreased risk of MI and a higher incidence of minor bleeding.

Low molecular weight heparin versus regular heparin or aspirin in the treatment of unstable angina and silent ischemia

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to test the hypothesis that low molecular weight heparin may lessen the severity of ischemic events in patients with unstable angina.

BACKGROUND

Unstable angina is a thrombotic process that requires intensive medical treatment. Although current treatments can reduce the number of complications, serious bleeding continues to occur. Nadroparin calcium, a low molecular weight heparin, seems to be a safe therapeutic agent that does not require laboratory monitoring.

METHODS

A total of 219 patients with unstable angina entered the study at a mean time of 6.17 h after the last episode of rest pain. Patients were randomized to receive aspirin (200 mg/day [group A]), aspirin plus regular heparin (400 IU/kg body weight per day intravenously and titered by activated partial thromboplastin time [group B]) and aspirin plus low molecular weight heparin (214 UIC/kg anti-Xa twice daily subcutaneously [group C]). The major end points determined for the in-hospital period were 1) recurrent angina, 2) myocardial infarction, 3) urgent revascularization, 4) major bleeding, and 5) death. Minor end points were 1) silent myocardial ischemia, and 2) minor bleeding. Event rates were tested by chi-square analysis.

RESULTS

Recurrent angina occurred in 37%, 44% and 21% of patients in groups A, B and C, respectively, and was significantly less frequent in group C than in either group A (odds ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1 to 5.18, p = 0.03) or group B (odds ratio, 3.07, 95% CI 1.36 to 7.00, p = 0.002). Nonfatal myocardial infarction was present in seven patients in group A, four in group B and none in group C (group B vs. A, p = 0.5; group C vs. A, p = 0.01). Urgent revascularization was performed in nine patients in group A, seven in group B and one in group C (C vs. A, p = 0.01). Two episodes of major bleeding occurred in group B. Silent myocardial ischemia was present in 38%, 41% and 25% of patients in groups A, B and C, respectively, and was significantly less frequent in group C than group B (odds ratio 2.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 4.69, p = 0.04). Minor bleeding was detected in 10 patients in group B, 1 patient in group C (B vs. C, p = 0.01) and no patient in group A (A vs. B, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, treatment with aspirin plus a high dose of low molecular weight heparin during the acute phase of unstable angina was significantly better than treatment with aspirin alone or aspirin plus regular heparin.