Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Advances in the available pharmacotherapy for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation

INTRODUCTION

Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), including non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina, represent a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with important socio-economic consequences. NSTEMI accounts for the majority of acute coronary syndromes and usually develops on the background of a nonocclusive thrombus. We searched for relevant literature in the field in PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov as of July 2022.

AREAS COVERED

A number of pharmacotherapies are currently available for treatment and secondary prevention, mainly including antithrombotic, lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory drugs. Pretreatment with aspirin, anticoagulant and statin therapy is of key importance in the preprocedural phase, while pretreating with an oral P2Y12 inhibitor is not routinely indicated in patients undergoing early invasive management. For patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization, pharmacotherapy essentially consists of antithrombotic drugs, which should be carefully selected. Finally, antithrombotic, lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory drugs are important components of long-term secondary prevention after a NSTE-ACS.

EXPERT OPINION

This article reviews the evidence supporting recommendation on pharmacotherapy in patients presenting with a NSTE-ACS. Several randomized clinical trials are still ongoing and are expected to further inform scientific knowledge and clinical practice, with the final aim to improve the treatment of NSTE-ACS patients.

Practicability of Bivalirudin plus Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis

A variety of antithrombotic drugs are used during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). We aimed to investigate the practicability of the use of bivalirudin and GPIs in patients receiving PCI. We searched 7 of 629 relevant records from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials. There were no significant differences in the rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between bivalirudin plus GPI and heparin (all P  >  .05). Bivalirudin plus planned GPI was similar to bivalirudin monotherapy in terms of the risk of MACE (risk ratio [RR] = 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .91 − 1.27; P = .55). Bivalirudin plus provisional GPI was associated with lower bleeding risk (RR = .57; 95% CI = .47 − .69; P < .01) compared to using heparin plus GPI. Compared to bivalirudin alone, bivalirudin plus planned GPI evidently increased bleeding risk (RR = 2.20; 95% CI = 1.73 − 2.79; P < .01). Patients receiving bivalirudin or heparin therapy had semblable efficacy endpoints, but those receiving bivalirudin had a significantly lower bleeding risk. For high-risk bleeding patients, bivalirudin plus provisional GPI can have a better antithrombotic effect than heparin, without increasing the bleeding risk.

Bivalirudin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and independent predictors of postoperative adverse events in these patients: A real world retrospective study

ABSTRACT

The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has always been a hot topic in perioperative antithrombotic therapy, but there are still some controversies. So studies are needed to provide more evidence, especially the real world study which includes patients excluded from previous RCT studys. Our study aimed to investigate these information and analyze the independent predictors of postoperative adverse events.A retrospective study enrolled 1416 patients underwent PCI in Tianjin Chest Hospital from May 2016 to October 2017. The incidence of stent-thrombosis and net clinical adverse events, including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent target-vessel revascularization and bleeding, were followed up for 30 days and 1 year. Logistic regression and COX regression were respectively used to analyze independent predictors of bleeding events within 30-days, and independent predictors of Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with stent implantation within 1-year.Seven hundred six patients were treated with bivalirudin while 710 with unfractionated heparin (UFH). The proportions of diabetes, hypertension, anemia, myocardial-infarction history, PCI history, moderate-to-severe renal-impairment, gastrointestinal-bleeding history in the bivalirudin group were significantly higher (P < .05). Women, anemia were independent risk factors for bleeding within 30-days (P < .05). Among 682 patients with stent implantation in bivalirudin group, anemia, Body Mass Index (BMI) >25 kg/m2, KILLIP ≥2, ejection fraction (EF) <45%, eGFR <60 ml/minutes were independent risk factors for MACCE, while Statins, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) were independent protective factors for MACCE with-in 1-year (P < .05).Bivalirudin have good anticoagulant effect and lower bleeding risk during PCI, especially in patients with higher bleeding risk. In patients treated with bivalirudin, female, anemia were independent predictors of bleeding within 30-days, BMI >25 kg/m2, anemia, KILLIP ≥2, EF <45%, eGFR <60 ml/minutes were independent risk factors and Statins, PPI were independent protective factors of MACCE within 1-year.

Rationale and design of the RIGHT trial: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of anticoagulation prolongation versus no anticoagulation after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, whether anticoagulation should be continued after pPCI has not been well investigated.

METHODS/DESIGN

The RIGHT trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in STEMI patients treated with pPCI evaluating the prolongation of anticoagulation after the procedure. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either prolonged anticoagulant or matching placebo (no anticoagulation) for at least 48 hours after the procedure. When randomized to anticoagulation prolongation, the patient is assigned to intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous enoxaparin or intravenous bivalirudin (same drug and same regimen at each center). The primary efficacy endpoint is the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, stent thrombosis (definite) or urgent revascularization (any vessel) at 30 days. The primary safety endpoint is major bleeding (BARC 3-5) at 30 days. Based on a superiority design and assuming a 35% relative risk reduction (from 7% to 4.5%), 2856 patients will be enrolled, accounting for a 5% drop-out rate (α = 0.05 and power = 80%).

CONCLUSION

The RIGHT trial tests the hypothesis that post-procedural anticoagulation is superior to no anticoagulation in reducing ischemic events in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes: Bivalirudin With Transfemoral Access Versus Heparin With Transradial Access in Patients With ST segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

INTRODUCTION

The best combination of access site and anticoagulant used during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients presenting with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction is not known.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients >18 years of age who underwent primary PCI in 2 large regional ST segment elevation myocardial infarction centers in Massachusetts between 2012 and 2014. The cohort was divided into 3 groups: bival/fem, hep/rad, or off-protocol, based on anticoagulation and access used. We used multiple logistic regression model to compare major cardiovascular events-major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding complications between the 2 on-protocol groups (bival/fem and hep/rad).

RESULTS

Of the 1074 patients in this study, there were 443 (41%), 501 (47%), and 130 (12%) patients in bival/fem, hep/rad, and off-protocol groups, respectively. There were significantly higher number of cardiogenic shock patients in the bival/fem compared to the hep/rad group (6.5% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001). There was a trend toward reduced MACE in the hep/rad group compared to bival/fem (2.8 % vs. 5.1%, P = 0.068). When cardiogenic shock patients are excluded, there is no significant difference in mortality rates (bival/fem: 2.7% vs. hep/rad: 1.0%, P = 0.07) or bleeding complications between the groups (hep/rad: 4.5% vs. bival/fem: 2.1%, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing primary PCI, there was a trend toward reduced inpatient MACE with the use of heparin and radial access compared with bivalirudin with femoral access. In patients without cardiogenic shock, there is no significant difference in mortality or bleeding rates between the 2 groups.

Bivalirudin versus heparin, without glycoprotein inhibition, in percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes over 10years

OBJECTIVE

The choice of antithrombotic agent used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial. While earlier studies suggested a reduction in bleeding events with bivalirudin, these studies were confounded by the concomitant use of glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors (GPI) in the heparin group. More recent studies have challenged the superiority of bivalirudin, pointing to an increased risk of stent thrombosis. Real-world data remains limited.

METHODS

We queried our institutional catheterization laboratory database for all PCI cases performed between January 2003 and December 2012 using only heparin or only bivalirudin (no use of GPI). We collected data on relevant patient and procedural characteristics and compared both efficacy and safety outcomes. We adjusted for baseline differences using coarsened exacting matching.

RESULTS

8061 cases met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 34.9% were performed with heparin alone and 65.1% with bivalirudin. After adjusting for baseline differences, we found that those patients receiving heparin had a slightly lower risk of post-procedural abrupt vessel closure (0.1% vs 0.5%). All other outcomes favored bivalirudin including procedural success (97.2% vs 95.5%), transfusion within 72h (2.2% vs 4.8%), retroperitoneal bleeding (0.1% vs 0.8%), and all-cause mortality (0.9% vs 1.9%). Subgroup analysis suggested that outcomes were different only in non-elective cases and non STEMI cases.

CONCLUSION

Heparin appears to offer the advantage of slightly reduced risk of abrupt vessel closure post-procedure but at the cost of increased hemorrhagic complications and all-cause mortality. This difference in outcomes may be limited to non-elective and non STEMI cases with femoral access.

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin (Biva) versus heparin in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. Our meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Biva compared with those of heparin in patients with diabetes undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major bleeding. Secondary efficacy endpoints were incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACE), myocardial infarction (MI), and death. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the efficacy and safety of Biva versus heparin.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and 8428 patients were included. No significant difference was observed in the subgroup and overall risk of MACE (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.74-1.02; P = .08; I = 39%) and NACE (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.61-1.07; P = .14; I = 71%). Biva had an effect similar to that of heparin on the endpoint of death (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.56-1.02; P = .07; I = 0) and MI (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.67-1.26; P = .59; I = 0) but decreased the risk of major bleeding (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.52-0.75; P < .00001; I = 0%).

CONCLUSION

The use of Biva and heparin is associated with a similar risk of MACE, NACE, death, and MI. Biva decreases the risk of major bleeding more significantly than heparin.

Controversies in the Management of ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Thrombin Inhibition

Anticoagulation is essential in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to prevent further thrombosis and to maintain patency of the infarct-related artery after reperfusion. The various anticoagulant medications available for use in patients with STEMI include unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux, and bivalirudin, a direct thrombin inhibitor. The authors review the current anticoagulation strategies for patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), fibrinolysis, or no reperfusion. The authors present the latest evidence and controversies on this topic, with a focus on bivalirudin versus UFH in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI.

Bivalirudin versus Heparin plus Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Women Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Bivalirudin has been shown to be safe and efficacious compared with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether bivalirudin would have the beneficial effects in female patients undergoing PCI remains unknown. We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials that assessed bivalirudin versus heparin plus GPI therapy in female patients undergoing PCI. The primary efficacy end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 30 days. The secondary efficacy end points were 30-day incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent/ischemia-driven revascularization of target vessel. The safety end point was major bleeding up to 30 days. A total of 4,501 female patients were included in five randomized trials. No significant difference in MACE emerged between bivalirudin and heparin plus GPI at 30 days (8.15% vs 8.76%, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77-1.16, P = .57). There were no significant differences in rates of mortality (1.28% vs 1.91%, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.20, P = .22), MI (5.46% vs 5.25%, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79-1.32, p = .88), or target vessel revascularization (2.13% vs 1.65%, RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.88-2.30, P = .15). Compared with heparin plus GPI, bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day major bleeding (5.32% vs 9.20%, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.72, P < .0001). In conclusion, bivalirudin is associated with a significant reduction in 30-day major bleeding without increased ischemic events compared with heparin plus GPI in female patients undergoing PCI.