Reduction of reinfarction and angina with use of low-molecular-weight heparin therapy after streptokinase (and heparin) in acute myocardial infarction

Low molecular weight heparins for arterial thrombosis

The use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism has been validated by numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses over the past 25 years. More recently, the possibility of extending treatment with LMWH to the arterial disease where thrombosis is a prominent feature has led to the planning of many clinical trials, several of which have been already published. LMWH has been tested in settings such as acute coronary syndromes, including myocardial infarction, surgery or percutaneous revascularization for coronary and peripheral arteries, and stroke. In most indications, LMWH has proved to be superior to or at least as effective as unfractionated heparin and it is also easier to administer.

Enoxaparin in cardiovascular disease: how to improve effectiveness and safety?

The review analyses the specifics of enoxaparin therapy in the most prevalent cardiovascular diseases, such as acute coronary syndrome, venous thromboembolism, and atrial fibrillation. The decision strategy is presented for difficult and non-standard clinical situations (renal dysfunction, elderly age, heparin medication change, or abnormal body weight), when the optimal balance between effectiveness and safety requires modifying the standard treatment protocols.

Efficacy and Safety of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins As An Adjunct to Thrombolysis in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

A 48-hour course of intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the standard of treatment in conjunction with fibrin-specific thrombolysis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In recent trials, the efficacy and safety of in-hospital administration of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), previously proven effective in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, have been investigated in the setting of STEMI. The aim of this review was to evaluate the available evidence supporting the use of LMWH in STEMI.

Overall, about 27,000 patients treated with various thrombolytic regimens, were included in 12 open-label randomized clinical trials, where dalteparin, reviparin or enoxaparin were administered. While acknowledging the wide variability in study dimensions, designs and end-points, a higher efficacy of LMWH was observed overall as compared to placebo, and also to UFH (mainly as regards the occurrence of reinfarction). As regards safety, bleedings were more frequent than placebo and comparable to UFH in LMWH groups, with the exception of the pre-hospital ASSENT-3 PLUS trial, where in elderly patients, enoxaparin had an incidence of intracranial hemorrhage twice higher than UFH. In a recent double-blind, randomized, mega-trial including over 20,000 patients, the superior efficacy on in-hospital and 30-day adverse cardiac events (namely reinfarction), and comparable safety on intracranial bleedings, of enoxaparin compared to UFH, was shown.

In conclusion, in-hospital subcutaneous administration of dalteparin, reviparin and enoxaparin, as an adjunct to various thrombolytics in STEMI, appears feasible and at least as effective and safe as 48-hour intravenous treatment with UFH. In accordance with the available strongest evidence, an initial intravenous bolus of enoxaparin followed by twice daily subcutaneous administration for about 1 week should be the preferred regimen, and should be strongly considered instead of intravenous UFH. Along with its easiness of use, not requiring laboratory monitoring, subcutaneous administration of LMWH following STEMI treated with thrombolysis allows extended antithrombotic treatment, while permitting early mobilization (and rehabilitation) of patients.

Enoxaparin in patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction

The inhibition of thrombin plays a key role as adjunct therapy in the management of patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction. Enoxaparin provides a more predictable and constant level of anticoagulation compared with the current standard unfractionated heparin. The available data from smaller studies and prospective registries suggest that enoxaparin is associated with a reduction in the rate of death and nonfatal reinfarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention without an increase in bleeding complications. Thus, a large randomized trial is warranted to further evaluate the role of enoxaparin in these patients.

Low-molecular-weight heparins in acute myocardial infarction: rationale and results of a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Antithrombotic adjuncts to fibrinolytic drugs for acute myocardial infarction increase the rate and speed of infarct artery recanalization.

HYPOTHESIS

A low-molecular-weight heparin might be preferable to unfractionated heparin for this indication, as it has been shown to be in several other thrombus-related vascular disorders.

METHODS

We performed a pilot study in 20 patients, all receiving aspirin and recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. Randomization was to standard dose intravenous unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin (the first dose given intravenously and followed by a subcutaneous administration). The endpoint was stability of anticoagulant effect.

RESULTS

Enoxaparin produced stable therapeutic anti-Xa levels with minimal effect on activated partial thromboplastin times. Unfractionated heparin produced wide swings of these parameters, often outside desired levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Enoxaparin may be a better antithrombotic agent than conventional unfractionated heparin when used in conjunction with fibrinolytics.

Low-molecular-weight heparins : mechanisms, trials, and role in contemporary interventional medicine

The clinical spectrum of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) encompasses unstable angina, non-ST-elevation, and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Within an atherosclerotic plaque, disruption of the endothelium can lead to exposure of tissue factor, with platelet adhesion, activation and aggregation, along with activation of the coagulation cascade, culminating in thrombin formation and the development of a cross-linked fibrin clot at the site of injury. Therapy aimed at blocking thrombin formation is now an integral part of the current cardiovascular guidelines in the treatment of ACS. Although unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been the mainstay of antithrombin therapy in the past, it has numerous clinical and biochemical limitations, including substantial protein binding (leading to inconsistent bioavailability), a need for frequent monitoring and adjustment, unreliable and variable degrees of anticoagulation, significant platelet activation, risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and the inability to block clot bound thrombin. With all of these limitations of UFH, low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have emerged as attractive alternatives. This review discusses the mechanism of action of LMWHs, and summarizes available literature concerning the use of LMWHs in a variety of clinical settings. Included in this review is an analysis of both current and prior data showing LMWH is as effective as UFH in the conservative and invasive management of patients with ACS. As well, very recent data are evaluated showing the safety and efficacy of LMWHs used in patients transitioning to the cardiac catheterization laboratory, and in those patients undergoing elective or urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We also appraise the literature, along with the very recent studies investigating the use of LMWHs as adjunctive therapy to fibrinolytics in patients with STEMI. Finally, we set forth real-world conclusions concerning the use of LMWHs in contemporary interventional practice, including elective PCI and the treatment of ischemic coronary artery disease in the context of rapid invasive management of ACS.

Use of anticoagulants in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients; a focus on low-molecular-weight heparin

INTRODUCTION

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but given logistics, many patients are still managed with thrombolytics. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is recommended for routine use in STEMI patients treated with thrombolytics. However, other anticoagulants have been evaluated for use in STEMI patients treated with thrombolysis, including the low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs, enoxaparin, dalteparin, and reviparin), fondaparinux and bivalirudin.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A review of the available randomized controlled study data shows that most evidence, in terms of number of trials and number of patients treated with anticoagulants in STEMI has accumulated for LMWHs. The use of enoxaparin and reviparin improves hard clinical efficacy endpoints although there is an excess of bleeding events. Trials with dalteparin have failed to demonstrate improvement in hard clinical efficacy endpoints compared with UFH.

SUMMARY

Enoxaparin is currently the only LMWH with FDA approval for use in STEMI patients and should be considered as a preferable alternative to UFH in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolysis.

Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in Conjunction with Thrombolysis for ST-Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) is recommended in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), following thrombolysis with fibrin-specific agents. Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), previously proven effective in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, have been recently investigated in the setting of STEMI. We aimed at evaluating the current level of evidence supporting the use of LMWH in STEMI.

METHODS

A Medline search of the English language literature between January 1995 and December 2005 was performed and randomized clinical trials comparing LMWH to either placebo or UFH in conjunction with thrombolysis were selected.

RESULTS

About 26,800 patients treated with various thrombolytic regimens were included in 12 randomized clinical trials. Dalteparin was superior to placebo on left ventricular thrombosis/arterial thromboembolism, with no significant effect on the early patency rate of the infarct-related artery (IRA). Compared to UFH, dalteparin had no significant effect on clinical events and on the IRA late patency, although less thrombus was present. Enoxaparin was superior to placebo on the medium-term death/reinfarction/angina rate and late IRA patency, and superior also to UFH on in-hospital and medium-term occurrence of death/reinfarction/angina. The effect of enoxaparin on IRA patency rate was not univocal. Compared to placebo, reviparin significantly reduced early and medium-term mortality and reinfarction rates, without a substantial increase in overall stroke rate. As regards safety, bleedings were more frequent than placebo and comparable to UFH in LMWH groups, with the exception of the pre-hospital ASSENT-3 PLUS trial, where in elderly patients, enoxaparin had an incidence of intracranial hemorrhage twice higher than UFH.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital subcutaneous administration of dalteparin, enoxaparin or reviparin, as an adjunct to various thrombolytics in STEMI, appears feasible and at least as effective and safe as intravenous UFH. Before LMWH might be recommended, however, some yet unresolved issues (i.e. use in elderly patients, in severe renal insufficiency, in association with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and during interventional procedures), need to be addressed.

Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin as adjuncts to thrombolysis in aspirin-treated patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the role of intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with aspirin and thrombolysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a meta-analysis of the randomized trials to assess the effect of UFH and LMWH on reinfarction, death, stroke, and bleeding. Fourteen trials involving a total of 25,280 patients were included (1239 comparing intravenous UFH versus placebo or no heparin; 16,943 comparing LMWH versus placebo; and 7098 comparing LMWH versus intravenous UFH). Intravenous UFH during hospitalization did not reduce reinfarction (3.5% versus 3.3%; odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.99) or death (4.8% versus 4.6%; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.78) and did not increase major bleeding (4.2% versus 3.4%; OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.18) but increased minor bleeding (19.6% versus 12.5%; OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.43). During hospitalization/at 7 days, LMWH compared with placebo reduced the risk of reinfarction by approximately one quarter (1.6% versus 2.2%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.90; number needed to treat [NNT]=167) and death by &10% (7.8% versus 8.7%; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; NNT=111) but increased major bleeding (1.1% versus 0.4%; OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.83 to 3.99; number needed to harm [NNH]=143) and intracranial bleeding (0.3% versus 0.1%; OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 4.52; NNH=500). The reduction in death with LMWH remained evident at 30 days. LMWH compared with UFH during hospitalization/at 7 days reduced reinfarction by &45% (3.0% versus 5.2%; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.73; NNT=45), did not reduce death (4.8% versus 5.3%; OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13) or increase major bleeding (3.3% versus 2.5%; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.72), but increased minor bleeding (22.8% vs 19.4%; OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.43). The reduction in reinfarction remained evident at 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

In aspirin-treated patients with STEMI who are treated with thrombolysis, intravenous UFH has not been shown to prevent reinfarction or death. LMWH given for 4 to 8 days compared with placebo reduces reinfarction by approximately one quarter and death by &10% and when directly compared with UFH reduces reinfarction by almost one half. These data suggest that LMWH should be the preferred antithrombin in this setting.

Low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

One of the primary goals of physicians treating patients presenting to a hospital with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is to restore the flow of blood in the infarct-related artery as quickly as possible. Prompt and successful reperfusion limits the size of the myocardial infarction, reduces left ventricular dysfunction, and improves the patient's chance of survival. Approximately two thirds of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction do not present to a hospital capable of conducting urgent direct percutaneous coronary intervention or cardiac surgery when it is needed. They must receive pharmacological reperfusion therapy, a combination of fibrinolytic, antiplatelet, and anticoagulant drugs. Earlier and simpler administration of pharmacological reperfusion therapy could result in significantly improved outcomes. Fibrinolytic therapy, in combination with adjunctive antithrombin therapy that is simpler and quicker to administer (e.g., tenecteplase with enoxaparin), may be more efficacious and easier to use than regimens involving unfractionated heparin.

Evolving Role of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

OBJECTIVE:

To review the available literature on the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy or conservative medical management.

DATA SOURCES:

A MEDLINE search (1966–March 2004) using the key words myocardial infarction, STEMI, LMWH, enoxaparin, and dalteparin identified pertinent articles. The references of these articles were reviewed for additional pertinent references.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

All human trials of LMWH in STEMI were evaluated. All pertinent studies were included in the review.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

LMWH did not show a benefit in STEMI without fibrinolytic therapy. Enoxaparin is similar to intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) in combination with nonspecific fibrinolytic therapy with regard to invasive reperfusion markers and 30-day clinical outcomes. Enoxaparin decreases composite endpoints in combination with fibrin-specific fibrinolytic therapy compared with UFH, primarily through a reduction in the incidence of reinfarction at 30 days. Bleeding rates with LMWH in combination with fibrinolytic agents are not greater than those with UFH.

CONCLUSIONS:

Enoxaparin is a reasonable alternative to UFH in patients with STEMI treated with fibrin-specific fibrinolytic therapy. LMWH in patients managed with nonspecific fibrinolytic therapy or conservative medical treatment does not provide an advantage over standard management. Large clinical trials are ongoing which will provide more definitive recommendations.

Challenges in the conduct of large simple trials of important generic questions in resource-poor settings: the CREATE and ECLA trial program evaluating GIK (glucose, insulin and potassium) and low-molecular-weight heparin in acute myocardial infarction

Background

Approximately 15.5 million deaths from cardiovascular diseases occur every year. About half are due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and 80% occur in low- and middle-income countries. Therefore, low-cost therapies would be invaluable. Although glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) infusion and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) appear to be promising in AMI, the available trials are inconclusive and these treatments require rigorous evaluation.

Methods

The Clinical Trial of Reviparin and Metabolic Modulation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment and Evaluation-Estudios Clínicos Latino America (CREATE-ECLA) study is a randomized controlled trial in ST-elevation AMI patients evaluating a 24-hour infusion of Glucose-Insulin-Potassium (GIK) intravenous vs usual care (control) on 30-day mortality in 20 000 patients from 21 countries. Patients from India and China (n = 15 000) are also randomized using a factorial design to receive low-molecular-weight heparin (Reviparin) or placebo injection twice daily for 7 days to assess the impact on the composite outcomes of death, reinfarction or stroke (first co-primary outcome) or the composite + refractory ischemia (second co-primary outcome).

Results

Twenty thousand two hundred and one (20,201) GIK/control patients and 15,570 Reviparin/placebo patients have been included, with results expected in November 2004.

Conclusions

The CREATE-ECLA trial will provide definitive answers to the role of 2 practical, promising and low-cost therapies, LMWH and GIK, in AMI patients. If effective, these therapies could be used in small medical centers in low- and middle- income countries. The experiences in this trial indicate that large trials of important questions can be successfully conducted in resource-poor settings, by academic groups without industry involvement.

The evolution of thrombolytic therapy and adjunctive antithrombotic regimens in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction continues to be associated with substantial mortality rates. Despite much advancement in care, current treatments have also failed to eliminate the significant risk of morbidity, including reinfarction, reocclusion of the infarct-related artery, and thromboembolic stroke. The potential benefit of early thrombolytic therapy in reducing mortality was first established in 1986. Further benefits of conjunctive therapy with aspirin were demonstrated soon thereafter. This review examines the most significant trends in the pharmacologic therapy of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction since the publication of these early studies: the development of fibrinolytic drugs with improved clot selectivity and improved pharmacokinetic profiles that simplify administration, making ED or even prehospital thrombolysis more practical. More recent data can be interpreted as showing that regimens that are simpler and easier to administer are also clinically superior. This article reviews pharmacologic advances and evaluates the evidence for their use in EDs.

The use of low molecular weight heparin to predict clinical outcome in patients with unstable angina that had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Antithrombotic therapy with heparin reduces the rate of ischemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Low-molecular-weight heparin, given subcutaneously twice daily, has a more predictable anticoagulant effect than standard unfractionated heparin. Moreover, it is easier to administer and does not require monitoring.

METHODS

We prospectively analyzed 180 patients with unstable angina who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 1999 and 2001 at Chonnam National University Hospital and had received either 120 U/kg of dalteparin (Fragmin), administered subcutaneously twice daily (Group I; n = 90, 61.8 +/- 8.9 years, male 67.8%), or had received continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin (Group II; n = 90, 62.6 +/- 9.7 years, male 70.0%). During hospitalization and at 6 month after PCI, major adverse cardiac events such as acute myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, death, and restenosis were examined.

RESULTS

During hospitalization, the incidence of acute myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and death were not different between the two groups. At follow-up coronary angiography 6 months after PCI, the incidence of restenosis was lower in group I than in group II (Group I; 26/90, 28.8% vs. Group II; 32/90, 35.6%, p = 0.041) and the incidence of target vessel revascularization was lower in group I than in group II (Group I; 21/90, 23.3% vs. Group II; 27/90, 30.0%, p = 0.039). No difference was found in the rates of major and minor hemorrhages, ischemic strokes or thrombocytopenia between two groups. By multivariate analysis, the factors related to restenosis were lesion length, postprocedural minimal luminal diameter, CRP on admission, diabetes mellitus, the type of heparin, and stent use.

CONCLUSION

Dalteparin, a low molecular weight heparin, is superior to standard unfractionated heparin in terms of reducing the restenosis rate and target vessel revascularization without increasing bleeding complications.

Thrombolytic therapy: clinical applications

The therapeutic use of thrombolytic agents is the result of the increasing understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying normal and deranged thrombosis and fibrinolysis. Plasminogen activators capable of increasing the production of plasmin exhibit considerable efficacy in the treatment of a variety of arterial and venous thrombotic disorders. The ideal thrombolytic agent has not been developed, but the desired clinical result of rapid opening of the thrombosed vessel without reocclusion, without activation of systemic fibrinogenolysis, and without a risk of hemorrhage are defined. Clinical studies clearly demonstrate that the addition of a variety of adjunctive agents to available thrombolytics enhances benefit without inordinate risk. The addition of intravascular angioplasty and stenting to thrombolysis increases the potential long-term benefit. Newer thrombolytic agents and new protocols for the use of existing therapies offer the promise of saving many who would otherwise succumb to coronary or cerebral arterial thrombosis or to venous thromboembolism.

Thrombolytic therapy

The therapeutic use of thrombolytic agents is the natural result of the increasing understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying normal and deranged thrombosis and fibrinolysis. Plasminogen activators capable of increasing the production of plasmin exhibit considerable efficacy in the treatment of a variety of arterial and venous thrombotic disorders. The ideal thrombolytic agent has yet to be developed but the desired clinical result of rapid opening of the thrombosed vessel without reocclusion, without activation of systemic fibrinogenolysis, and without a risk of hemorrhage is well defined. Clinical studies clearly demonstrate that the addition of a variety of adjunctive agents to the available thrombolytics enhances benefit without inordinate risk. The addition of intravascular angioplasty and stenting to thrombolysis increases the potential long-term benefit. Newer thrombolytic agents and new protocols for the use of existing therapies offer the promise of saving many who would otherwise succumb to coronary or cerebral arterial thrombosis or to venous thromboembolism.

The role of low-molecular-weight heparin in cardiovascular diseases

Unfractionated heparin continues to have important limitations in clinical practice. It has an inconsistent anticoagulant effect, needs frequent monitoring, and is inactivated by several plasma proteins. Low-molecular-weight heparins have a more predictable anticoagulant effect than unfractionated heparin, are easier to administer, and may not require monitoring. The anticoagulation effect of low-molecular-weight heparins is caused by a combination of inhibition of thrombin generation and inhibition of thrombin activity. Low-molecular-weight heparins have now been evaluated for a number of cardiovascular conditions and have been found to be safe and effective. We review and summarize the existing data regarding the use of low-molecular-weight heparins in cardiovascular diseases, including venous thromboembolism, percutaneous coronary interventions, and acute coronary syndromes such as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Enoxaparin: an update of its clinical use in the management of acute coronary syndromes

Enoxaparin (enoxaparin sodium) is a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) indicated for use in the treatment of ischaemic complications of unstable angina and non-Q wave myocardial infarction (MI). Unfractionated heparin (UFH) has for many years represented the standard in anticoagulant therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes; however, recent studies suggest that enoxaparin is also a viable option for anticoagulant therapy in these patients. The ESSENCE (Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q wave Coronary Events) and the TIMI 11B (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) studies reported that twice daily enoxaparin was significantly more effective than a continuous infusion of UFH in reducing the composite triple endpoint of death, MI, or recurrent angina or urgent revascularisation. Follow-up of both patient populations showed continued benefit associated with enoxaparin. Enoxaparin has been compared with tinzaparin in the treatment of unstable coronary artery disease using a nonblind study design. There was no difference between treatment groups in the therapeutic endpoints. Three nonblind studies have also compared the effects of enoxaparin and UFH in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy following acute MI. The HART II (Heparin and Aspirin Reperfusion Therapy), the ASSENT 3 (Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic Regimen) and the ENTIRE-TIMI 23 (Enoxaparin and Tenecteplase with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor as Reperfusion strategy in ST Elevation MI - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) studies have revealed that enoxaparin in combination with alteplase or tenecteplase is at least equivalent (HART II and ENTIRE-TIMI 23), and possibly superior (ASSENT 3) to UFH. Enoxaparin is administered as a twice-daily subcutaneous injection. In contrast, UFH is administered as an intravenous infusion which requires routine monitoring of the activated partial thromboplastin time to ensure adequate levels of anticoagulation are maintained. During the acute phase of the the ESSENCE and TIMI 11B studies, the incidence of major bleeding was similar in patients receiving enoxaparin to that in patients receiving UFH. In contrast, the rates of minor bleeding were higher in patients receiving enoxaparin than in those receiving UFH throughout these studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the ESSENCE, TIMI 11B and ASSENT 3 studies have prompted calls for those LMWHs which have been shown to be superior to UFH, to be considered as first choice treatment for anticoagulation in unstable coronary syndromes. To date, these suggestions are not reflected in current guidelines which consider UFH and LMWHs equally. Irrespective, the clinical data reported in this review support the use of enoxaparin in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. These data suggest that enoxaparin shows certain clinical and practical advantages over standard treatment with UFH and represents an important development in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes.

Influence on coagulation activity by subcutaneous LMW heparin as an adjuvant treatment to fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction

In this study, which includes 101 patients with acute ST segment-elevated myocardial infarction, we investigated the influence on the increased coagulation activity after streptokinase treatment by adding low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin or placebo and the relation between the coagulation activity and ischemic episodes, coronary patency, and mortality. The expected increase of prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2), thrombin-antithrombin (TAT), and D-dimer were significantly attenuated at 2, 6, and 18 h (D-dimer only at 18 h) in the dalteparin group compared to placebo. Ischemic episodes during the first 24 h appeared significantly more often in patients with F1+2 levels above the median at 18 h. There was a tendency to a lower frequency of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction Trial (TIMI) grade 3 flow in the infarct-related artery in patients with TAT and D-dimer levels above the median at 18 h. F1+2, TAT, and D-dimer were significantly higher after 18, 6, and 18 h, respectively, in the deceased compared to surviving patients. Also, the lack of reduction of the levels of F1+2 between 6 and 18 h was related to a raised mortality. In conclusion, adjuvant treatment with LMW heparin to streptokinase attenuates increased coagulation activity. This might be of importance as remaining high coagulation activity is associated with signs of early reocclusion and raised mortality.

Acute ischemic syndromes. Adjunctive therapy

The acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a heterogeneous group of patients along a continuum of risk from unstable angina to non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. ACS is a term that has been used to describe the constellation of clinical symptoms that represent acute myocardial ischemia. This article reviews the adjunctive medications that are used during emergency cardiovasculare care for the early management of patients experiencing the ACS. The adjunctive therapies are divided into early immediate treatment and then subsequent management in the acute care setting.

Low-molecular weight heparins in coronary artery disease

Recently published trials strongly support the use of low-molecular weight heparins in the treatment of unstable coronary syndromes. These agents provide an alternative to heparin that is at least as effective and safe, and does not require intravenous infusions or meticulous monitoring. Although comparative trials are not yet available, the available evidence allows for selection of specific agents in acute management of unstable angina. This review summarizes the current clinical data supporting the use of these agents.

Arterial indications for the low molecular weight heparins

Antithrombotic treatment is of proven importance in patients with acute coronary syndromes. There is now accumulating evidence from several clinical trials in patients with unstable angina pectoris that the low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are at least as effective as unfractionated heparin. The LMWHs are easier to use, with the potential to facilitate long-term outpatient treatment. The results of the trials have actually failed to show any clear advantage, however, of the LMWHs over the standard antiplatelet treatment, despite the evidence of a sustained hypercoagulability. Potentially, the use of higher doses of LMWHs could improve the outcomes, but this is as yet unproven and could be associated with unacceptably increased risk of bleeding. During the acute phase of a stroke, aspirin is the first choice of antithrombotic drug because it reduces the risk of recurrent stroke. LMWH cannot be recommended as an antithrombotic agent for the acute treatment of stroke. Prophylactic use of low dose LMWH for the prevention of venous thromboembolism should be considered in every patient with a stroke.

The role of low-molecular-weight heparins in arterial diseases: optimizing antithrombotic therapy

On the basis of current evidence, all patients with acute coronary syndromes should receive optimized medical therapy, whether or not they ultimately undergo an invasive revascularization procedure, to improve both clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness. While standard aspirin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) have improved short-term outcomes, they do not eliminate the risk of recurrent ischemic episodes. The recent introduction of platelet fibrinogen receptor antagonists and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) has offered an opportunity to develop more aggressive antithrombotic regimens. The LMWHs have been thoroughly evaluated in unstable angina and non-Q wave myocardial infarction (UA/NQMI), and have demonstrated improved efficacy compared to standard UFH, without an increase in major complications caused by bleeding. Experience has also been gathered using LMWHs in other arterial diseases (such as pregnant patients with prosthetic heart valves) and as an adjunctive therapy with thrombolytics for acute myocardial infarction. Lastly, studies are currently underway evaluating LMWHs in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Impact of enoxaparin low molecular weight heparin in patients with Q-wave myocardial infarction

A subgroup meta-analysis from the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE) and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 11B studies has shown that enoxaparin is superior to unfractionated heparin in reducing the composite end points of death, myocardial infarction, and emergency revascularization in patients with Q-wave myocardial infarction. The beneficial treatment effect was significant at 43 days.

Assessment of low-molecular-weight heparin trials in cardiology

This review assesses the trial data for low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) use in cardiology. LMWHs have been shown to be more convenient to use compared with unfractionated heparin. The use of LMWHs in prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis is now established. Use of LMWHs in cardiology is gathering momentum. The most compelling published data are in unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI). LMWHs are at least as effective as unfractionated heparin in terms of the composite endpoint of death and MI. Conclusive benefits of LMWH use to prevent restenosis after stent insertion or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty have not been established. The data in MI and atrial fibrillation are still preliminary, but encouraging.

Role of low-molecular-weight heparins in the management of patients with unstable angina pectoris and non-Q-wave acute myocardial infarction

The development of effective approaches to the management of the unstable coronary syndromes has resulted from an improved understanding of interactions between the vascular wall, platelets, and coagulation factors, and of their response to pharmacologic and mechanical interventions. Furthermore, the occurrence of frequent adverse events after discharge in patients with unstable coronary artery disease (CAD) treated with these therapies alone would argue that, for many of these patients, such stabilization is not the end of the therapeutic pathway; rather, these therapies are for many a preparation for ultimate revascularization, to preserve myocardium and minimize periprocedural complications. The low-molecular-weight heparins with their unique pharmacology offer a new option in the therapy of patients with unstable CAD. There is now extensive experience in the use of several of the low-molecular-weight heparins, particularly dalteparin and enoxaparin, in the management of patients with unstable angina. Several trials have investigated the questions raised by these observations, taking advantage of the unique pharmacologic properties of the low-molecular-weight heparins for both acute inpatient use and prolonged outpatient administration. Although differences in study design preclude direct comparison between the available low-molecular-weight heparins, in these trials low-molecular-weight heparins have been shown to be effective alternatives to conventional heparin for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-Q-wave infarction. These include several small-scale trials and the larger FRagmin during InStability in Coronary artery disease (FRISC), Fragmin in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease (FRIC), Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE), FRISC II, and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI)-11B trials. Thus, the low-molecular-weight heparins appear to be a superior alternative to traditionally administered intravenous unfractionated heparin. They are more predictable in action, do not require frequent activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) measurements and dosage adjustments, are easier to administer, and are potentially more efficacious. With their proven efficacy, predictability of action, and convenience of administration and dosing, there are very good reasons for selecting them as first-line therapies for patients presenting with unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction.

Thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction

Early reperfusion of thrombotically occluded coronary arteries by thrombolytic therapy has become a routine option in initial therapy of acute myocardial infarction. Many efforts have been made to improve the biological properties of thrombolytic agents in terms of fibrin specificity, plasma half-life and resistance to natural plasma inhibitors, to improve adjuvant therapy and to shorten the 'pain to reperfusion' time. Numerous randomised, multicentre trials have analysed the benefit of the various thrombolytic agents and regimens, which has enabled the creation of a 'current standard of therapy'. This review presents an update on available thrombolytic agents, their biochemical and pharmacological properties and results from clinical trials.

Ischemic complications after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

The ischemic complications ofpercutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) include abrupt closure, which occurs in 2% to 10% of patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Periprocedural myocardial infarction due to side branch occlusion or embolization of platelet aggregates or thrombus occurs in 5% to 20% of patients. Patients with acute coronary syndromes, older age, and complex lesions are at greater risk of periprocedural complications. Technical advances, primarily stenting, are useful in the prevention and management of acute closure, but are also accompanied by thrombotic complications. It remains to be seen whether the new antithrombin agents reduce the rate of periprocedural complications if used in combination with aspirin and new antiplatelet therapies. These new antiplatelet agents (ticlopidine, clopidogrel, abciximab, eptifibatide, and tirofiban) reduce the rate of ischemic complications and have become standard adjunctive therapy for patients who undergo PTCA.

Formulary management of low molecular weight heparins

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are increasingly being utilised as anticoagulants in healthcare settings. These agents offer several advantages over standard unfractionated heparin. Indications for LMWHs include deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism prophylaxis, deep vein thrombosis treatment, use in coronary procedures associated with a high risk for bleeding, and in acute coronary syndromes. Prior to being added to formularies, LMWHs should be evaluated for efficacy, safety and economic benefits over other anticoagulants. Institutions should be prepared to conduct their own economic assessments in the absence of readily available studies. There is clear evidence that LMWHs are cost saving or are at least cost effective as thromboprophylactic agents in major orthopaedic surgery. The economic benefits of LMWHs in other surgical situations is less clear. Consistent evidence from several countries indicate that LMWHs are cost saving as anticoagulants for the initial treatment of DVT. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of LMWHs in other conditions besides hip and knee arthroplasty and general surgery.

The emerging role of low-molecular-weight heparin in cardiovascular medicine

Although unfractionated heparin is widely used in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, it has several pharmacokinetic, biophysical, and biological limitations. The practical advantages and success of low-molecular-weight heparin administered subcutaneously without laboratory monitoring for the treatment of venous thromboembolism have prompted a number of randomized studies investigating the efficacy and safety of these agents in patients with acute coronary syndromes. This article will review the limitations of unfractionated heparin and the mechanisms by which low-molecular-weight heparin overcomes these limitations, as well as the results of recent trials involving low-molecular-weight heparin in the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Low molecular weight heparin (dalteparin) as adjuvant treatment of thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction--a pilot study: biochemical markers in acute coronary syndromes (BIOMACS II)

OBJECTIVES

This randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial evaluated the effect of dalteparin as an adjuvant to thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction regarding early reperfusion, recurrent ischemia and patency at 24 h.

BACKGROUND

Low-molecular-weight heparin, given subcutaneously twice daily without monitoring, might be an attractive alternative to conventional intravenous heparin in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

In 101 patients dalteparin/placebo 100 IU/kg was given just before streptokinase and a second injection 120 IU/kg after 12 h. Monitoring with continuous vector-ECG was done to obtain signs of early reperfusion and later ischemic episodes. Blood samples for myoglobin were obtained at start and after 90 min to evaluate signs of reperfusion. Coronary angiography was performed after 20-28 h to evaluate TIMI-flow in the infarct-related artery.

RESULTS

Dalteparin added to streptokinase tended to provide a higher rate of TIMI grade 3 flow in infarct-related artery compared to placebo, 68% versus 51% (p = 0.10). Dalteparin had no effects on noninvasive signs of early reperfusion. In patients with signs of early reperfusion, there seemed to be a higher rate of TIMI grade 3 flow, 74% versus 46% (myoglobin) (p = 0.04) and 73% versus 52% (vector-ECG) (p = 0.11). Ischemic episodes 6-24 h. after start of treatment were fewer in the dalteparin group, 16% versus 38% (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

When dalteparin was added as an adjuvant to streptokinase and aspirin, there were tendencies for less ECG monitoring evidence of recurrent ischemia and better patency at 24 h, warranting further study.

Influences of sex and smoking habits on anticoagulant activity in low-molecular-weight heparin treatment of unstable coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

In the FRISC trial, dalteparin 120 IU/kg body weight twice daily for unstable coronary artery disease was safe and reduced the risk of new coronary events. This risk reduction was maintained during the following extended treatment with a fixed dose of 7500 IU dalteparin once daily.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Minor bleeding was more frequent in women compared with men: relative risk (CI) 2.88 (1.78 to 4.67) during the weight-adjusted and 2.36 (1.37 to 2.63) during the fixed dose treatment. The anti-Xa activity determined in samples (n = 175) obtained during the acute phase treatment was higher in women compared with men (P <.001) and in nonsmokers compared with smokers (<.001) in multiple regression analysis. Also, during the fixed-dose treatment (n = 131) an independent relation between anti-Xa activity and sex (P <.001), but not smoking habits, persisted.

CONCLUSION

To improve future low-molecular-weight heparin dose regimens for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, it might be important to consider the influence of sex and smoking habits.

Low-molecular-weight heparins for acute coronary syndromes

OBJECTIVE

To review published literature regarding the use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the acute coronary syndromes of unstable angina and acute myocardial infarction (MI).

METHODS

A MEDLINE search (January 1986-August 1997) was performed to identify all pertinent articles. Selected references from these articles and abstracts of recent clinical trials were also included.

DISCUSSION

LMWHs have several distinct advantages over standard unfractionated heparin (UFH). These advantages include convenient once- or twice-daily standardized administration without the need for activated partial thromboplastin time monitoring. While the use of LMWHs as prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism is fairly well-established, the use of LMWHs for treating acute myocardial ischemia is evolving. Published studies and abstracts have shown LMWHs to be as effective as or more effective than UFH in preventing death, myocardial infarction, and recurrent ischemia in patients with unstable angina or acute MI. The comparative incidence of bleeding between LMWHs and UFH is controversial, with some studies reporting lower or similar rates of bleeding with LMWHs, while one study demonstrated a higher bleeding rate than with UFH. The cost-effectiveness of using LMWHs over UFH for acute coronary syndromes also remains to be established.

CONCLUSIONS

LMWHs appear to be as effective as, and potentially more effective than, UFH in preventing complications of acute coronary syndromes. However, further studies are needed to better define the comparative bleeding risks of LMWHs and UFH. This, plus the lack of published peer-reviewed trial results and pharmaco-economic analyses, preclude the recommendation of routinely using LMWHs for treating unstable angina and acute MI at this time.

Randomized trial of low molecular weight heparin (dalteparin) in prevention of left ventricular thrombus formation and arterial embolism after acute anterior myocardial infarction: the Fragmin in Acute Myocardial Infarction (FRAMI) Study

OBJECTIVES

The present trial investigated the efficacy and safety of dalteparin in the prevention of arterial thromboembolism after an acute anterior myocardial infarction (MI).

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) thrombus formation is associated with increased risk of arterial embolism in patients with an acute MI. Thrombolytic and antiplatelet therapy do not prevent thrombus formation.

METHODS

A total of 776 patients were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of subcutaneous dalteparin (150 IU/kg body weight every 12 h during the hospital period). Thrombolytic therapy and aspirin were administered in 91.5% and 97.6% of patients, respectively. The primary study end point was the composite of thrombus formation diagnosed by echocardiography and arterial embolism on day 9 +/- 2.

RESULTS

Of 517 patients with echocardiographic recordings available for end point analysis, thrombus formation or embolism, or both, was found in 59 (21.9%) of 270 patients (59 with thrombus, none with embolism) in the placebo group and 35 (14.2%) of 247 patients (34 with thrombus, 1 with embolism) in the dalteparin group (p = 0.03). The risk reduction of thrombus formation associated with dalteparin treatment was 0.63 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.92, p = 0.02). Analyses of all randomized patients (388 in each group) revealed no significant difference between the placebo and dalteparin groups with respect to arterial embolism (6 vs. 5 patients), reinfarction (8 vs. 6 patients) and mortality rates (23 vs. 23 patients, p = NS for all). Dalteparin was associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage: major in 11 dalteparin group patients (2.9%) verus 1 placebo group patient (0.3%, p = 0.006); minor in 52 dalteparin group patients (14.8%) versus 8 placebo group patients (1.8%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Dalteparin treatment significantly reduces LV thrombus formation in acute anterior MI but is associated with increased hemorrhagic risk.

Progression of the culprit lesion in unstable coronary artery disease with warfarin and aspirin versus aspirin alone: preliminary study

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed whether combination therapy with aspirin and warfarin for 10 weeks reduces the risk of progression or reocclusion of the unstable coronary artery lesion.

BACKGROUND

Reocclusion of the culprit coronary artery occurs in up to one third of patients during the 3 months after myocardial infarction (MI) or unstable angina and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

Fifty-seven patients presenting with unstable angina or MI who had an identifiable culprit lesion at coronary angiography were randomized in double-blind manner to receive warfarin (target international normalized ratio [INR] 2.0 to 2.5) or placebo in addition to aspirin (150 mg daily). Changes in the culprit lesion were assessed by quantitative angiography in 50 patients after 10 weeks of therapy or after a clinical event. Progression of the culprit lesion was defined as a decrease in minimal lumen diameter > 0.4 mm or a new total occlusion. Regression was defined as an increase in minimal lumen diameter > 0.4 mm.

RESULTS

In subjects randomized to receive warfarin, the culprit lesion was less likely to progress (1 [4%] vs. 8 [33%]) and more likely to regress (5[19%] vs. 2[9%]) than in subjects receiving placebo (p = 0.02). Recurrent MI or a new occlusion at angiography occurred in 2 (7%) of 29 patients receiving warfarin versus 11 (39%) of 28 patients receiving placebo (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, combined therapy with aspirin and warfarin with a target INR of 2.0 to 2.5 for 10 weeks reduces the risk of progression or reocclusion of the culprit coronary lesion.

Low molecular weight heparin(oid)s. Clinical investigations and practical recommendations

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is traditionally used for prevention and treatment of thrombosis. However, its use is associated with a clinically relevant bleeding risk. Low molecular weight heparin(oid) [LMWH] preparations have been designed to improve upon the efficacy and safety ratio of UFH. They have been investigated in clinical studies following the favourable outcome of extensive animal experimentation to determine their efficacy in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and in arterial thrombotic conditions such as ischaemic stroke, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and unstable angina. Indeed, an improved efficacy/safety ratio of LMWHs in the prevention of postoperative venous thrombosis in high risk orthopaedic surgery patients has been observed as compared to UFH prophylaxis. No significant differences with respect to antithrombotic efficacy and bleeding complications were observed in patients with relatively lower risk such as in those undergoing general surgery. Subsequently, these agents have been investigated for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. The results of a series of clinical trials reveal that LMWHs are at least as safe and effective as UFH for initial treatment, with the additional advantage of the possibility of home treatment without the requirement of laboratory control and with a reduced risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Preliminary data suggest that LMHWs may be suitable for thromboprophylaxis in neurosurgery and stroke patients; in addition, they may have a place in the treatment of patients with acute stroke, unstable angina and individuals in the post-myocardial infarction stage. However, additional confirmatory data for these potential indications are required before definite recommendations can be given. LMWH compounds have at least a similar efficacy and safety as UFH in haemodialysis. In addition, they simplify the anticoagulant regimen because of the efficacy of a single predialysis bolus injection.