Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing bivalirudin versus heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Periprocedural antithrombotic strategies in acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Have we discarded bivalirudin too soon?

BACKGROUND

Publication of the BRIGHT-4 trial results has restimulated discussion about the optimal periprocedural antithrombotic strategy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). It is possible that variation in the infusion duration, may contribute to observed differences in safety-efficacy profiles of bivalirudin in this clinical setting.

METHODS

Up to December 2022, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin (either administered peri-procedurally or accompanied by postprocedural infusion) and heparin, both with or without GPI, were searched and entered in a frequentist network meta-analysis. Co-primary endpoints were trial-defined major adverse composite events (MACE) and major bleeding. Incident rate ratios (IRR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

10 RCTs (N = 57,137 patients/month) were included. As compared to heparin, prolonged bivalirudin infusion resulted in lower rates of major bleeding (IRR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.36-0.91), but there was no differences in MACE rates between these strategies. With regard to NACE, prolonged bivalirudin infusion yielded lower risk (IRR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.77-0.96), whereas both bivalirudin and heparin increased risk when coupled with GPI (IRR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.01-1.51 and IRR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.06-1.44, respectively). Both these combination strategies also increased minor bleeding rates (IRR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.16-1.93 and IRR 1.58, 95 % CI 1.29-1.95, respectively, for bivalirudin and heparin). Results were consistent across several sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, procedural bivalirudin administration followed by prolonged infusion results in lower major bleeding rates, but there does not appear to be a difference in observed MACE.

Antithrombotic therapy in the elderly and senile age: the consensus opinion of experts of the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatricians and the National Society of Preventive Cardiology

В данном документе обсуждаются особенности АТТ у лиц пожилого и старческого возраста в различных клинических ситуациях.

Differences of bleedings after percutaneous coronary intervention using femoral closure and radial compression devices

Bleedings represent most relevant complications being correlated with significant rates of adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To reduce bleeding and improve prognosis various types of vascular closure devices (VCD) are frequently applied. This study aims to compare directly one specific femoral closure (FC) to one specific radial compression (RC) device in patients after PCI focusing on overall and access-site bleedings as well as major adverse cardiac events (MACE).This single-center, prospective, and observational study included consecutive patients either treated by the FC (StarClose SE) or RC (TR Band) device following PCI. The primary outcome was bleeding; the secondary outcomes were MACE at 30 days of follow-up.Two hundred patients in each group were enrolled following PCI. Access-site bleeding was significantly higher in the FC (43%) compared to the RC (30%) group (P = .001). Most common type of access-site bleeding consisted of hematomas. Of these, small and large hematomas were significantly higher in the FC group (P < .05). No significant differences of MACE were observed in both groups. In multivariable logistic regression models no consistent significant association of any risk factor with bleeding complications was identified.Despite the use of VCD, transfemoral arterial access is still associated with a higher rates of access site bleeding consisting mostly of hematomas compared to trans-radial access, whereas no differences of MACE were observed between FC and RC patients at 30 days follow-up.

Extravascular compared to Intravascular Femoral Closure is Associated with Less Bleeding and Similar MACE after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: Various types of vascular closure devices (VCDs) are frequently utilized in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in order to prevent arterial access site bleeding, which represents one of the most relevant complications associated with adverse clinical outcomes. This study aims to compare directly two mechanistically different types of femoral closure (FC) devices in patients undergoing PCI. Methods: This single-center, prospective, observational study includes consecutively patients either treated by the extravascular StarClose SE® (Abbott, Illinois, U.S.A.) or the intravascular AngioSeal™ FC (St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.) after PCI. The primary endpoint was bleeding complications, the secondary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days of follow-up. Results: 200 patients in each group (StarClose SE® and AngioSeal™) were enrolled following PCI. The rates of overall and non-access site bleedings were significantly higher in the AngioSeal™ group (56%; 6%) compared to the StarClose SE® group (43.5%; 0.5%) (p = 0.012; 0.003). Additionally, complicated access site bleedings were also significantly higher in the AngioSeal™ group (p = 0.011). No significant differences of MACE were observed in both groups. However, there was a higher rate of unsuccessful implantation of the StarClose SE® (n=12, excluded from the study). Conclusions: In case of successful implantation, FC by the AngioSeal™ is associated with the higher rate of both access and non-access site bleedings, but similar rates of MACE at 30 days compared to the StarClose SE® device.

Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Unfractionated Heparin Versus Bivalirudin in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Anti-platelet and anti-coagulant adjunctive therapies are associated with a clinically significant increased risk of major bleeding. We retrospectively assessed in-hospital major adverse clinical events (MACE) and major bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who received either unfractionated heparin (UFH) or bivalirudin.

METHOD

Consecutive patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at Fremantle Hospital from August 2008 to December 2013 were identified. Patients received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), with either UFH (50-100IU/kg) or bivalirudin (bolus 0.75mg/kg and infusion 1.75mg/kg/hr). Adjunctive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GPIIbIIIa) antagonist use was at the operator's discretion. In-hospital events were identified from case notes and PCI database review.

RESULTS

Of 3371 patients identified, 1740 received UFH and 1631 received bivalirudin. The two groups were similar with respect to age, 62.5 SD 12.1 yrs vs. 62.8 SD 12.2 yrs, (p=0.575) female gender, 24% vs. 26% (p=0.10), current smokers, 66% vs. 70% (p=0.53), diabetes, 25% vs. 26% (p=0.62) and the use of DAPT (p=ns). Presentation with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was significantly higher in the UFH group (28% vs. 19%, p<0.001). The use of transfemoral arterial access was similar (93% UFH vs. 92% bivalirudin) (p=0.41). More patients received GPIIb/IIIa antagonist in the UFH group (30% vs. 3%; p <0.001). There was no difference in pre-discharge acute stent thrombosis (<24hours) occurring in 1.0% with UFH vs. 0.5% with bivalirudin (p=0.20). The equipoise on the outcomes of stent thrombosis persisted after multivariate adjustment for difference in rates of STEMI. In-hospital BARC Type 1-3 major bleeding occurred in 3.7% in the UFH group vs. 2.9% in the bivalirudin group (p=0.20).

CONCLUSION

Unfractionated heparin compared with bivalirudin was not associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital MACE or major bleeding in a cohort with overall high rates of transfemoral access, despite significantly higher use of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists in the UFH group.

An updated comprehensive meta-analysis of bivalirudin vs heparin use in primary percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Despite several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, the ideal anticoagulant for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. We performed an updated meta-analysis including recently reported randomized clinical trials that compare bivalirudin and heparin with or without provisional administration of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) for primary PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Scientific databases and Web sites were searched for randomized clinical trials. Data from 6 trials involving 14,095 patients were included. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models. Moderator analyses examined the impact of routine use of GPI, radial access, and P2Y12 inhibitors on safety outcomes. At 30 days, patients receiving bivalirudin had rates of major adverse cardiac events similar to those receiving heparin with or without provisional GPI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87-1.19, P = .800), myocardial infarction (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.94-2.11, P = .089), target vessel revascularization (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.91-2.04, P = .122), and net adverse clinical events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64-1.01, P = .069). However, bivalirudin use decreased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = .041) and cardiac mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.91, P = .009) at 30 days, There were higher rates of acute stent thrombosis (RR 3.31, 95% CI 1.79-6.10, P < .001) in patients receiving bivalirudin. Bivalirudin use also decreased the risk of major bleeding at 30 days by 37% (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90, P = .012), but bleeding risk varied depending on routine GPI use with heparin (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.81, P = .009) vs bailout (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.25, P = .252), predominantly radial access (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25-1.15, P = .114) vs non-radial access (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-0.99, P = .049), and second-generation P2Y12 inhibitor use with bivalirudin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40-1.24, P = .226) vs clopidogrel use (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.85, P = .018).

CONCLUSIONS

In primary PCI, relative to heparin, bivalirudin reduces the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and major bleeding but yields similar rates of major adverse cardiac event and net adverse clinical event at 30 days. However, the benefit of a reduction in bleeding with bivalirudin appears to be modulated by the concurrent administration of second-generation P2Y12 inhibitors with bivalirudin, using radial access, and avoiding routine GPI use with heparin.

Design and Rationale of the Femoral Closure versus Radial Compression Devices Related to Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (FERARI) Study

BACKGROUND

Bleeding events after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are associated with patients’ age, gender, and the presence of chronic kidney disease, antithrombotic treatment, as well as arterial access site. Patients being treated by PCI using radial access site are associated with an improved prognosis. However, the safety of femoral closure devices has never been compared to radial compression devices following PCI. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of femoral closure compared to radial compression devices in patients treated by PCI envisaging access site bleedings as well as short- and long-term prognostic outcomes.

METHODS

The Femoral Closure versus Radial Compression Devices Related to Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (FERARI) study is a single-center observational study comparing 400 consecutive patients undergoing PCI either using radial compression devices (TR Band™) or femoral closure devices (Angio-Seal™) at the corresponding access site. The primary outcome consists of the occurrence of vascular complications at the arterial access site, including major bleedings as defined by common classification systems. Secondary outcomes consist of the occurrence of adverse cardiac events, including all-cause mortality, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization during 30 days and 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Study enrollment was initiated in February 2014. The enrollment phase is expected to last until May 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

The FERARI study intends to comparatively evaluate the safety and prognostic outcome of patients being treated by radial or femoral arterial closure devices following PCI during daily clinical practice.

Comparison of anti-thrombotic strategies using Bivalirudin, Heparin plus Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and Unfractionated Heparin Monotherapy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention - A single centre observational study

AIMS

The study was planned to compare Anti-thrombotic strategies for patients undergoing PCI in a real world population with an emphasis on occurrence of major bleeding, composite ischemic end points and economic outcomes.

METHODS

The present study is a single center, prospective, observational study in consecutive patients undergoing PCI at Fortis Escorts Heart Institute (FEHI) and describes Authors' experience with three different Anti-Thrombotic Strategies in a real world population. Patients were consecutively enrolled in the study and the choice of Anti-thrombotic strategy was left to individual operator(s) based on their own clinical judgment and patient's affordability. No specific inclusion/exclusion criteria were specified on the choice of Anti-Thrombotic Strategy.

RESULTS

A total 1453 patients were consecutively enrolled into the study and were followed telephonically after 30 days. 252 patients were treated with Bivalirudin (Angiomax) during PCI (17.3%), 430 (29.6%) patients were treated with Heparin plus GPI & remaining 771 (53.1%) were treated with Heparin monotherapy. Incidence of major bleeding was lowest in patients treated with Bivalirudin (1.59%) when compared to Heparin plus GPI (3.49%) and Heparin monotherapy (5.97%), p = 0.005 Bivalirudin vs. Heparin Monotherapy, and p = 0.145, Bivalirudin vs. Heparin + GPI. No bleeding was observed in STEMI patients treated with Bivalirudin compared to 7.4% in patients treated with GPI and 14.3% in patients treated with UFH. Similarly non-access site bleeding was lowest in patients treated with Bivalirudin. Only 4 patients (1.6%) treated with Bivalirudin required Blood transfusion compared to 25 in Heparin plus GPI (5.8%) and 38 (5%) in Heparin Monotherapy arm. In Composite Ischemic end-points, no "All-cause Mortality" was observed in Bivalirudin group compared to 2.8% in Heparin plus GPI. Early stent thrombosis was seen in 1 patient with Heparin plus GPI and none with Heparin monotherapy and Bivalirudin group. None of the patients underwent TLR (target lesion revascularization) and TVR (target vessel revascularization) within 30 days post procedure other than one early stent thrombosis reported with Heparin plus GPI. Cost of blood product transfusion was lower with Bivalirudin as compared to Heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa arm (p = 0.01) and with Heparin alone (p = 0.001). Due to lower complications including blood transfusions and reduced hospital stay in Bivalirudin group, these benefits outweigh the incremental cost due to higher acquisition cost of the drug.

CONCLUSION

Bivalirudin use during PCI is associated with a distinct advantage of having lower access site and non-access site bleeding without compromising on the efficacy. We observed a reduction in blood transfusions, hospital stay and mortality for patients treated with Bivalirudin compared with Heparin plus GPI or Heparin Monotherapy. Bivalirudin can be safely adopted into our Institutional protocol for the treatment of high risk PCI such as STEMI, ACS, and Complex elective PCI.

Antiplatelet Therapy During PCI for Patients with Stable Angina and Atrial Fibrillation

The pharmacological treatment options for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (Afib) have increased with the introduction of novel oral anticoagulants, compared with earlier times, when vitamin K antagonist was the drug of choice. As they age, many Afib patients require percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), necessitating antiplatelet medication in addition to anticoagulation therapy. Choosing the appropriate combination and duration of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies may be challenging in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and even more complicated during and after coronary intervention with the introduction of additional antithrombotic drugs. In this article, we review the scientific basis for the recent guidelines for anticoagulation and antithrombotic therapy in patients with Afib and stable CAD before, during, and after elective PCI.

Critical Appraisal of Bivalirudin versus Heparin for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

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.

Short- and long-term outcomes in diabetes patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin compared with heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIA inhibitors: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Diabetes patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have more complications than nondiabetes patients, including increased long-term mortality. Use of bivalirudin versus heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) in diabetes patients undergoing PCI and its effect on long-term mortality were evaluated in few randomized trials, but with conflicting results.

METHODS

We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials that compared heparin and GPI therapy with bivalirudin in diabetes patients undergoing PCI. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization, major and minor bleeding (at 30 days), as well as all-cause mortality at 1 year were included, and meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 5,137 patients with diabetes were included in four randomized trials. At 30 days, bivalirudin, compared with heparin and GPI, caused less major bleeding (odds ratio (OR), 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52-0.89; P = 0.005) and less minor bleeding (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.41-0.57; P < 0.00001) and similar rates of MACE (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.08; P = 0.21), MI (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68-1.10; P = 0.25), and urgent revascularization (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76-1.65; P = 0.57). Death from any cause at 30 day was numerically lower with bivalirudin use but not statistically significant (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-1.13; P = 0.15). Mortality at 1 year was significantly lower in diabetes patients treated with bivalirudin compared with heparin and GPI (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99; P = 0.04). A secondary analysis suggests that the major bleeding benefit with bivalirudin may be driven by mandated use of GPI in heparin arm.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with diabetes undergoing PCI, bivalirudin caused less major and minor bleeding compared with heparin and GPI, with similar rates of MACE, death, MI, and urgent revascularization at 30 days, but significantly lower mortality rates at 1 year.

Bivalirudin in stable angina and acute coronary syndromes

A parenteral anticoagulant is indicated in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Which anticoagulant should be preferred in each setting is not clearly established. Bivalirudin administration was considered in acute coronary syndromes after several clinical trials showed decreased bleeding risk with its use compared with the association of unfractionated heparin (UFH) with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). Most recent data demonstrate that the bleeding benefit identified in the previous studies was not due to bivalirudin's properties but to higher bleeding incidence in the comparator arm due to the disproportional use of GPIs with heparin. This paper reviews clinical evidence on bivalirudin as anticoagulant in stable angina and acute coronary syndromes.

Current state and novel approaches of antiplatelet therapy

An unresolved problem with clinical use of antiplatelet therapy is that a significant number of individuals either still get thrombosis or run the risk of life-threatening bleeding. Antiplatelet drugs are widely used clinically, either chronically for people at risk of athero/thrombotic disease or to prevent thrombus formation during surgery. However, a subpopulation may be resistant to standard doses, while the platelet targets of these drugs are also critical for the normal hemostatic function of platelets. In this review, we will briefly examine current antiplatelet therapy and existing targets while focusing on new potential approaches for antiplatelet therapy and improved monitoring of effects on platelet reactivity in individuals, ultimately to improve antithrombosis with minimal bleeding. Primary platelet adhesion-signaling receptors, glycoprotein (GP)Ib-IX-V and GPVI, that bind von Willebrand factor/collagen and other prothrombotic factors are not targeted by drugs in clinical use, but they are of particular interest because of their key role in thrombus formation at pathological shear.