Abciximab and heparin versus bivalirudin for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Bivalirudin vs Heparin Anticoagulation in STEMI: Confirmation of the BRIGHT-4 Results

BACKGROUND

In the BRIGHT-4 (Bivalirudin With Prolonged Full-Dose Infusion During Primary PCI Versus Heparin Trial-4), anticoagulation with bivalirudin plus a 2- to 4-hour high-dose infusion after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced all-cause mortality and bleeding without increasing reinfarction or stent thrombosis compared with heparin alone in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). These findings require external validation.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine outcomes of bivalirudin vs heparin anticoagulation during PCI in STEMI.

METHODS

We performed an individual-patient-data meta-analysis of all large randomized trials of bivalirudin vs heparin in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI performed before BRIGHT-4. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Six trials randomizing 15,254 patients were included. Pooled across all regimens of bivalirudin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) use, bivalirudin reduced 30-day all-cause mortality (2.5% vs 2.9%; adjusted OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.62-0.99), cardiac mortality (adjusted OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54-0.88), and major bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.44-0.64) but increased reinfarction (adjusted OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.02-1.65) and stent thrombosis (adjusted OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.05-1.93) compared with heparin. In 4 trials in which 6,244 patients were randomized to bivalirudin plus a high-dose post-PCI infusion vs heparin without planned GPI use (the BRIGHT-4 regimens), 30-day all-cause mortality occurred in 1.8% vs 2.9% of patients, respectively (adjusted OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.48-1.12), and bivalirudin reduced cardiac mortality (adjusted OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39-0.97) and major bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.70), with similar rates of reinfarction (adjusted OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.58-1.38) and stent thrombosis (adjusted OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.41-1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, bivalirudin with a 2- to 4-hour post-PCI high-dose infusion reduced cardiac mortality and major bleeding without an increase in ischemic events compared with heparin monotherapy with provisional GPI use, confirming the BRIGHT-4 results.

Differential Use of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors with Bivalirudin in Patients with STEMI Undergoing PCI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin when used concurrently with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) is uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to explore the impact of differential use (greater and balanced) of GPI.

METHODS

Online databases were queried from inception to March 2023 to identify eight randomized controlled trials (n = 22,483) for inclusion. The primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary efficacy endpoints included cardiac death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis (ST), and stroke. Data were pooled using a random-effects model to derive risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

When compared to heparin, bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02), major bleeding (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.93; P = 0.01), cardiac death (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66-0.94; P = 0.01), and NACE (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.89; P < 0.0001). However, while the bivalirudin arm showed an increased likelihood of ST in the greater GPI subgroup (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.13-2.56; P = 0.01), it was associated with a decreased likelihood of ST in the balanced GPI subgroup (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24-0.65; P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

Overall, our findings suggest that bivalirudin may be a more efficacious intervention than heparin for reducing certain adverse events in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.

Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Bivalirudin is an alternative accepted therapy to unfractionated heparin for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed in this meta-analysis to compare bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in patients with MI undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We have screened PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through January 8th, 2023) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in patients with MI undergoing PCI. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used for estimation of tau2 to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with a total of 40,069 participants were included in our analysis. Bivalirudin as compared with unfractionated heparin was associated with significant decrease in major bleeding (RR 0.64 [0.52 to 0.79]; p < 0.01; I2 = 69 %) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.79 [0.67 to 0.92]; p < 0.01; I2 = 0 %). There was no significant difference between bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin groups in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 1.02 [0.91 to 1.14]; p = 0.73; I2 = 52 %), all-cause mortality (RR 0.89 [0.77 to 1.04]; p = 0.15; I2 = 23 %), MI (RR 1.02 [0.87 to 1.19]; p = 0.80; I2 = 36 %), stent thrombosis (RR 1.12 [0.52 to 2.40]; p = 0.77; I2 = 82 %), or stroke (RR 0.97 [0.73 to 1.29]; p = 0.85; I2 = 0 %).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin in patients with MI undergoing PCI was associated with lower rates of major bleeding and cardiovascular mortality without a significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis.

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.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During PCI in NSTEMI: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Large Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

The benefit:risk profile of bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to provide conclusive answers. We sought to compare the outcomes of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in all 5 trials that randomized ≥1000 patients with any myocardial infarction undergoing PCI to bivalirudin versus heparin (MATRIX [Minimizing Adverse Hemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox], VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART [Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial], ISAR-REACT 4 [Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 4], ACUITY [Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy], and BRIGHT [Bivalirudin in Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Heparin and GPI Plus Heparin Trial]). The primary effectiveness and safety end points were 30-day all-cause mortality and serious bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 12 155 patients were randomized: 6040 to bivalirudin (52.3% with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion), and 6115 to heparin (53.2% with planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between bivalirudin and heparin (1.2% versus 1.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.86-1.79]; P=0.25). Cardiac mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis rates were also not significantly different. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding (both access site-related and non-access site-related) compared with heparin (3.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72; P<0.0001). Outcomes were consistent regardless of use of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion or routine lycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use with heparin and during 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin and heparin did not result in significantly different rates of mortality or ischemic events, including stent thrombosis and reinfarction. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding compared with heparin arising both from the access site and nonaccess sites.

A Contemporary Review of Antiplatelet Therapies in Current Clinical Practice

Antiplatelet therapy plays a crucial role in a number of cardiovascular disorders. We currently have a range of antiplatelet agents in our armamentarium. In this review, we aim to summarise the common antiplatelet agents currently available, and their use in clinic practice. We not only highlight recent trials exploring antiplatelet therapy in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but also in trials related to transcatheter aortic valve implantation and coronavirus disease 2019. Inevitably, the antithrombotic benefits of these drugs are accompanied by an increase in bleeding complications. Therefore, an individualised approach to weighing each patient's thrombotic risk versus bleeding risk is imperative, in order to improve clinical outcomes.

Bivalirudin in acute coronary syndromes

INTRODUCTION

Bivalirudin, a bivalent direct thrombin inhibitor, has been developed to reduce bleeding without any trade-off in thrombotic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

AREAS COVERED

Despite showing a superior safety profile compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH), bivalirudin is not considered the anticoagulant of choice in ACS patients undergoing PCI, mainly because of an increased rate of acute stent thrombosis (ST) shown by several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in addition to limited availability in certain countries and increased costs. However, RCTs on bivalirudin have been characterized by several confounding factors hindering the interpretation of its safety and efficacy compared with UFH among the spectrum of ACS patients. Furthermore, a significant body of evidence has demonstrated that the risk of acute ST can be mitigated by a full-dose infusion regimen following PCI, without compromising the favorable safety profile compared to UFH.

EXPERT OPINION

In light of the increased understanding of the prognostic relevance of bleeding events and the excellent safety profile of bivalirudin, recent trial evidence may allow for this anticoagulant agent to reemerge and have a more prominent role in the management of ACS patients undergoing PCI.

The global prevalence of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the life-threatening coronary-associated pathologies characterized by sudden cardiac death. The provision of complete insight into MI complications along with designing a preventive program against MI seems necessary.

METHODS

Various databases (PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Embase, and Google scholar search engine) were hired for comprehensive searching. The keywords of "Prevalence", "Outbreak", "Burden", "Myocardial Infarction", "Myocardial Infarct", and "Heart Attack" were hired with no time/language restrictions. Collected data were imported into the information management software (EndNote v.8x). Also, citations of all relevant articles were screened manually. The search was updated on 2022.9.13 prior to the publication.

RESULTS

Twenty-two eligible studies with a sample size of 2,982,6717 individuals (< 60 years) were included for data analysis. The global prevalence of MI in individuals < 60 years was found 3.8%. Also, following the assessment of 20 eligible investigations with a sample size of 5,071,185 individuals (> 60 years), this value was detected at 9.5%.

CONCLUSION

Due to the accelerated rate of MI prevalence in older ages, precise attention by patients regarding the complications of MI seems critical. Thus, determination of preventive planning along with the application of safe treatment methods is critical.

Antithrombotic Treatment in Coronary Artery Disease

Coronary artery disease exhibits growing mortality and morbidity worldwide despite the advances in pharmacotherapy and coronary intervention. Coronary artery disease is classified in the acute coronary syndromes and chronic coronary syndromes according to the most recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Antithrombotic treatment is the cornerstone of therapy in coronary artery disease due to the involvement of atherothrombosis in the pathophysiology of the disease. Administration of antiplatelet agents, anticoagulants and fibrinolytics reduce ischemic risk, which is amplified early post-acute coronary syndromes or post percutaneous coronary intervention; though, antithrombotic treatment increases the risk for bleeding. The balance between ischemic and bleeding risk is difficult to achieve and is affected by patient characteristics, procedural parameters, concomitant medications and pharmacologic characteristics of the antithrombotic agents. Several pharmacological strategies have been evaluated in patients with coronary artery disease, such as the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic agents, optimal dual antiplatelet treatment schemes and duration, aspirin de-escalation strategies of dual antiplatelet regimens, dual inhibition pathway strategies as well as triple antithrombotic therapy. Future studies are needed in order to investigate the gaps in our knowledge, including special populations.

WITHDRAWN: Parenteral antiplatelet therapy in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock - A field still needing future randomized trials?

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published, 10.1016/j.repc.2022.08.010. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

The Evolution of Anticoagulation for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A 40-Year Journey

The selection of antithrombotic strategies continue to be of utmost importance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and have evolved over the past 40 years. Although the backbone of therapy during PCI continues to be a combination of oral antiplatelets and parenteral anticoagulants, a variety of different approaches have been tested over time. In particular, different choices of anticoagulation management have been tested in the stable ischemic heart disease and acute coronary syndrome setting. Evaluation of alternative regimens in the quest to balance ischemic and bleeding risk have undoubtedly improved patient care with PCI. In the current review we highlight the evolution of evidence-based therapeutic options over the past 40 years from the beginning of coronary angioplasty to contemporary PCI. We provide insight into future therapeutic options and provide a contemporary overview of anticoagulation choices for patients who require PCI on the basis of up-to-date evidence balancing ischemic and bleeding risk and according to clinical presentation.

Eptifibatide-Induced Severe Thrombocytopenia After ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI): A Case Report

Eptifibatide is a platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor that is used in certain cases of acute coronary syndrome, including those with high thrombus burden or with no-reflow. It can rarely be associated with severe thrombocytopenia, which brings up a dilemma in managing those patients who require antiplatelet therapy. We discuss a patient who had ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and developed severe thrombocytopenia after eptifibatide infusion. He was managed with platelet transfusion, stopping eptifibatide, and interrupting dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).

Periprocedural Antithrombotic Treatment in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

ABSTRACT

In recent years, the management of complex lesions in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) constitutes a field of high interest and concern for the interventional cardiology. As more and more studies demonstrate the increased hazard of ischemic events in this group of patients, it is of paramount importance for the physicians to choose the optimal periprocedural (pre-PCI, during-PCI and post-PCI) antithrombotic treatment strategies wisely. Evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of current anticoagulation recommendation, the possible beneficial role of the pretreatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor in the subgroup of patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction with complex lesions, and the impact of a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor in individuals with stable coronary artery disease undergoing complex PCI are needed. This will provide and serve as a guide to clinicians to deploy the maximum efficacy of the current choices of antithrombotic therapy, which will lead to an optimal balance between safety and efficacy in this demanding clinical scenario.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Bivalirudin Presents a Favorable Safety Profile Regarding Adverse Drug Reactions, Thrombocytopenia, and Bleeding in Chinese Patients With High Bleeding Risk Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Prospective, Multi-Center, Intensive Monitoring Study

Background

This study aimed to comprehensively explore the occurrence and risk factors for adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) (especially for thrombocytopenia and bleeding) in Chinese patients with high bleeding risk (older adults, or complicated with diabetes mellitus or renal function impairment) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bivalirudin as an anticoagulant.

Methods

A total of 1,226 patients with high bleeding risk who received PCI with bivalirudin as an anticoagulant from 27 Chinese medical centers were enrolled in this prospective, multi-center, intensive monitoring study. AEs, ADRs, thrombocytopenia, and bleeding were collected from admission to 72 h post-bivalirudin administration; subsequently, patients were followed up on the 30th day with the safety data collected as well.

Results

Adverse events were observed in 198 (16.2) patients, among which severe AEs occurred in 16 (1.3%) patients. Meanwhile, bivalirudin-related ADRs were reported in 66 (5.4%) patients, among which 5 (0.4%) patients experienced bivalirudin-related severe ADRs. Besides, thrombocytopenia and bleeding occurred in 45 (3.7%) and 19 (1.5%) patients, respectively. The subsequent multivariate logistic analysis revealed that age >75 years [p = 0.017, odds ratio (OR) = 1.856] and spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) (p = 0.030, OR = 2.022) were independently related to higher ADR risk; SCAD (p = 0.017, OR = 2.426) was independently correlated with higher thrombocytopenia risk, while radial artery access (p = 0.015, OR = 0.352) was independently correlated with lower thrombocytopenia risk; and the administration of bivalirudin preoperatively or intraoperatively (p = 0.013, OR = 5.097) was independently associated with higher bleeding risk.

Conclusion

Bivalirudin presents a favorable safety profile regarding ADRs, thrombocytopenia, and bleeding in Chinese patients with high bleeding risk undergoing PCI.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Monotherapy in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and no planned use of GPI (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors) in contemporary clinical practice of radial access and potent P2Y₁₂-inhibitors in the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART randomized clinical trial (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in STEMI and NSTEMI Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy-Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry).

METHODS

In this prespecified separately powered subgroup analysis, we included patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with the primary composite end point of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding event within 180 days.

RESULTS

Among the 6006 patients enrolled in the trial, 3005 patients with ST-segment-elevation MI were randomized to receive bivalirudin or heparin. The mean age was 66.8 years. According to protocol recommendations, 87% were treated with potent oral P2Y₁₂-inhibitors before start of angiography and radial access was used in 90%. GPI was used in 51 (3.4%) and 74 (4.9%) of patients randomized to receive bivalirudin and heparin, respectively. The primary end point occurred in 12.5% (187 of 1501) and 13.0% (196 of 1504; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.78-1.17], P=0.64) with consistent results in all major subgroups. All-cause death occurred in 3.9% versus 3.9% (HR, 1.00 [0.70-1.45], P=0.98), MI in 1.7% versus 2.2% (HR, 0.76 [0.45-1.28], P=0.30), major bleeding in 8.3% versus 8.0% (HR, 1.04 [0.81-1.33], P=0.78), and definite stent thrombosis in 0.5% versus 1.3% (HR, 0.42 [0.18-0.96], P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access and receiving current recommended treatments with potent P2Y₁₂-inhibitors rate of the composite of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding was not lower in those randomized to receive bivalirudin as compared with heparin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02311231.

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.

Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in patients undergoing rescue PCI.

METHODS

Between 2010-2015, we randomly assigned 83 patients undergoing rescue PCI to bivalirudin (n = 42) or heparin ± GPIs (n = 41). The primary safety endpoint was any ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) bleeding at 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was infarct size measured by peak troponin levels as a multiple of the local upper reference limit (Tn/URL). Secondary endpoints included periprocedural change in haemoglobin adjusted for red cells transfused, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding, ST-segment recovery and infarct size determined by the Selvester QRS score.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated due to slow recruitment and futility after an interim analysis of 83 patients. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 6 (14%) patients in the bivalirudin group (4.8% GPIs) and 3 (7.3%) in the heparin ± GPIs group (54% GPIs) (risk ratio, 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-7.3, P = 0.48). Infarct size was similar between the two groups (mean Tn/URL, 730 [±675] for bivalirudin, versus 984 [±1585] for heparin ± GPIs, difference, 254, 95% CI, -283-794, P = 0.86). There was a smaller decrease in the periprocedural haemoglobin level with bivalirudin than heparin ± GPIs (-7.5% [±15] versus -14% [±17], difference, -6.5%, 95% CI, -0.83-14, P = 0.0067). The rate of complete (≥70%) ST-segment recovery post-PCI was higher in patients randomised to heparin ± GPIs compared with bivalirudin.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether bivalirudin compared with heparin ± GPI reduces bleeding in rescue PCI could not be determined. Slow recruitment and futility in the context of lower-than-expected bleeding event rates led to the termination of this trial (ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12610000152022).

Effects of Heparin and Bivalirudin on Thrombin-Induced Platelet Activation: Differential Modulation of PAR Signaling Drives Divergent Prothrombotic Responses

Heparin and bivalirudin are widely used as anticoagulants in the setting of acute thrombosis. In this study, we investigated how these drugs affect the ability of thrombin to generate a prothrombotic platelet response via activation of the protease-activated receptors (PARs) 1 and 4. We examined the effects of heparin/antithrombin and bivalirudin on PAR1- and PAR4-mediated intracellular calcium mobilization, aggregation, α-granule release, and procoagulant membrane exposure in platelets exposed to thrombin concentrations likely to be encountered in the thrombus microenvironment during thrombosis. At physiological antithrombin levels, heparin treatment resulted in complete and sustained inhibition of thrombin-induced PAR4-mediated platelet activation, but transient PAR1 signaling was sufficient to elicit significant α-granule release and platelet aggregation. In contrast, bivalirudin treatment resulted in rapid and profound inhibition of signaling from both PAR receptors, followed by a delayed phase of PAR4-mediated platelet activation, resulting in a robust prothrombotic response. Combination treatment with bivalirudin and subtherapeutic concentrations of heparin completely inhibited the residual platelet activation observed with single drug treatment at all time-points. Our results show that heparin and bivalirudin have different and complementary inhibitory effects on the activation of PAR1 and PAR4 by thrombin.

Effects of Bivalirudin and Unfractionated Heparin on Liver and Renal Function in Chinese Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Coronary Angiography with/without Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and bivalirudin are widely used as anticoagulants in cardiovascular medicine, including for thrombosis prevention during coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Little is known of the effects of UFH and bivalirudin on liver and kidney function in patients subjected to these procedures. This study compared the effects of bivalirudin and UFH on liver/renal function in patients with coronary artery disease who underwent CAG, with or without PCI.

METHODS

The study comprised 134 consecutive patients (40-89 years-old), who underwent CAG (or CAG and PCI); among them, 66 and 68 patients were subject to, respectively, bivalirudin or UFH. The following indicators of liver/renal function were measured before and after the procedures: plasma alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), blood urea nitrogen, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), creatinine clearance, and serum creatinine. Patients were further stratified by severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD), based on original eGFR.

RESULTS

Relative to baseline, in the bivalirudin group, ALT and AST were higher after CAG (p=0.005, 0.025), while blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine were lower (p=0.049, <0.001). In the UFH group, ALT, AST, eGFR, and creatinine clearance were lower after CAG (p≤0.001, all). Patients given bivalirudin with moderate or severe CKD, but not those with mild CKD, gained significant improvement in kidney function.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to UFH, bivalirudin may better safeguard the renal function of patients with coronary artery disease who undergo CAG, especially patients with moderate-to-severe renal insufficiency. UFH may cause less liver damage than bivalirudin.

Apixaban versus PhenpRocoumon: Oral AntiCoagulation plus antiplatelet tHerapy in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Atrial Fibrillation (APPROACH-ACS-AF): Rationale and design of the prospective randomized parallel-group, open-label, blinded-endpoint, superiority, multicenter-trial of a triple therapy versus a dual therapy in patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome undergoing coronary stenting

BACKGROUND

A regimen of dual (DAT) vs. triple (TAT) antithrombotic therapy reduces bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, recent evidence suggests that DAT may be associated with an increased ischemic risk. This raises the question whether DAT rather than TAT should be recommended to AF patients that undergo PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), carrying a particularly high risk of both bleeding and ischemic events, studied only as subgroups of previous trials.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The APPROACH-ACS-AF-(DZHK-7) trial is a multicenter prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial which will include patients presenting with an ACS managed by PCI and requiring oral anticoagulation (OAC) due to AF. The trial will test, whether a DAT-regimen comprising clopidogrel plus the non-Vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) apixaban is superior to a TAT-regimen of vitamin-K-antagonist (VKA) plus dual anti-platelet therapy (APT) with respect to bleeding. A total of 400 patients will be randomized 1:1 to a control-arm with guideline-recommended TAT with VKA plus clopidogrel and acetylsalicylic-acid and a study arm receiving DAT comprising apixaban plus clopidogrel. Patients will be followed-up for 6 months. The primary endpoint of the study is the cumulative incidence of BARC type ≥2 bleeding, secondary endpoints include a composite clinical ischemic outcome and net clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

APPROACH-ACS-AF is the first trial dedicated to ACS patients, testing whether in terms of bleeding a DAT with NOAC is superior to a TAT regimen with VKA in high-risk ACS patients with AF.

Evolution of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a 40-year journey

Since its introduction in 1977, percutaneous coronary intervention has become one of the most commonly performed therapeutic procedures worldwide. Such widespread diffusion, however, would have not been possible without a concomitant evolution of the pharmacotherapies associated with this intervention. Antithrombotic agents are fundamental throughout the management of patients undergoing coronary stent implantation, starting from the procedure itself to the long-term prevention of cardiovascular events. The last 40 years of interventional cardiology have seen remarkable improvements in both drug therapies and device technologies, which largely reflected a progressive understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms of coronary artery disease, as well as procedure- and device-related adverse events. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the important milestones in antithrombotic pharmacology that have shaped clinical practice of today while also providing insights into knowledge gaps and future directions.

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.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Current Evidence and Ongoing Issues Regarding Early and Late Management

A few decades ago, the understanding of the pathophysiological processes involved in the coronary artery thrombus formation has placed anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents at the core of the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Increasingly potent antithrombotic agents have since been evaluated, in various association, timing, or dosage, in numerous randomized controlled trials to interrupt the initial thrombus formation, prevent ischemic complications, and ultimately improve survival. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention, initial parenteral anticoagulation, and dual antiplatelet therapy with potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors have become the hallmark of ACS management revolutionizing its prognosis. Despite these many improvements, much more remains to be done to optimize the onset of action of the various antithrombotic therapies, for further treating and preventing thrombotic events without exposing the patients to an unbearable hemorrhagic risk. The availability of various potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors has opened the door for individualized therapeutic strategies based on the clinical setting as well as the ischemic and bleeding risk of the patients, while the added value of aspirin has been recently challenged. The strategy of dual-pathway inhibition with P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and low-dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant has brought promising results for the early and late management of patients presenting with ACS with and without indication for oral anticoagulation. In this updated review, we aimed at describing the evidence supporting the current gold standard of antithrombotic management of ACS. More importantly, we provide an overview of some of the ongoing issues and promising therapeutic strategies of this ever-evolving topic.

Management of established coronary artery disease in aircrew with previous myocardial infarction or revascularisation

This manuscript focuses on the broad aviation medicine considerations that are required to optimally manage aircrew with established coronary artery disease (CAD) without myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularisation (both pilots and non-pilot aviation professionals). It presents expert consensus opinion and associated recommendations and is part of a series of expert consensus documents covering all aspects of aviation cardiology.Aircrew may present with MI (both ST elevation MI (STEMI) and non-ST elevation MI (NSTEMI)) as the initial presenting symptom of obstructive CAD requiring revascularisation. Management of these individuals should be conducted according to published guidelines, ideally with consultation between the cardiologist, surgeon and aviation medical examiner. Return to restricted flight duties is possible in the majority of aircrew; however, they must have normal cardiac function, acceptable residual disease burden and no residual ischaemia. They must also be treated with aggressive cardiac risk factor modification. Aircrew should be restricted to dual pilot operations in non-high-performance aircraft, with return to flying no sooner than 6 months after the event. At minimum, annual follow-up with routine non-invasive cardiac evaluation is recommended.

Clinical Outcomes of Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in Elderly Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin in elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted for randomized controlled trials with outcomes of interest in the elderly (≥ 65 years of age). Pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using random effects Der Simonian-Laird models were calculated. Primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (NACE) and major bleeding events at 30 days. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. MACE, all-cause mortality, and NACE at 6-12 months were also examined.

RESULTS

Eleven trials that randomized a total of 15,895 elderly patients undergoing PCI to bivalirudin versus heparin were included. At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a reduced risk of NACE (0.86 [0.75-0.99], p = 0.04), mainly driven by reduction in major bleeding events (0.66 [0.54-0.80], p < 0.0001), as compared with heparin. On subgroup analyses based on the use of GPI in the heparin arm, benefit of major bleeding associated with bivalirudin appeared to be equally evident when GPI was used as a bailout (0.66 [0.46-0.94], p = 0.02) versus routine (0.67 [0.51-0.88], p = 0.004) adjunctive therapy with heparin. Subgroup analyses stratified by clinical presentation showed that benefit of bivalirudin in reducing NACE was even more obvious in the elderly group presenting with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (0.76 [0.65-0.89], p = 0.0007), as compared with the overall (acute coronary syndrome or stable ischemic heart disease) group. No difference in MACE (0.94 [0.82-1.09], p = 0.42) was demonstrated between the two groups. Bivalirudin was associated with a similar risk of NACE (0.74 [0.39-1.42], p = 0.36) at 6 months and MACE (0.90 [0.68-1.19], p = 0.45) at 6-12 months, while a non-statistically significant trend toward lower all-cause mortality (0.70 [0.47-1.06], p = 0.09) at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding events and the magnitude of benefit was not related to the use of GPI and irrespective of clinical presentation. Bivalirudin may reduce the NACE, particularly in elderly patients presenting with STEMI or in the setting of routine GPI use in the heparin arm, while no difference in MACE was demonstrated between the two groups.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome complicated by cardiogenic shock or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a joint position paper from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Thrombosis, in association with the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

Timely and effective antithrombotic therapy is critical to improving outcome, including survival, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Achieving effective platelet inhibition and anticoagulation, with minimal risk, is particularly important in high-risk ACS patients, especially those with cardiogenic shock (CS) or those successfully resuscitated following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), who have a 30-50% risk of death or a recurrent ischaemic event over the subsequent 30 days. There are unique challenges to achieving effective and safe antithrombotic treatment in this cohort of patients that are not encountered in most other ACS patients. This position paper focuses on patients presenting with CS or immediately post-OHCA, of presumed ischaemic aetiology, and examines issues related to thrombosis and bleeding risk. Both the physical and pharmacological impacts of CS, namely impaired drug absorption, metabolism, altered distribution and/or excretion, associated multiorgan failure, co-morbidities and co-administered treatments such as opiates, targeted temperature management, renal replacement therapy and circulatory or left ventricular assist devices, can have major impact on the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic drugs. Careful attention to the choice of antithrombotic agent(s), route of administration, drug-drug interactions, therapeutic drug monitoring and factors that affect drug efficacy and safety, may reduce the risk of sub- or supra-therapeutic dosing and associated adverse events. This paper provides expert opinion, based on best available evidence, and consensus statements on optimising antithrombotic therapy in these very high-risk patients, in whom minimising the risk of thrombosis and bleeding is critical to improving outcome.

Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials of Bivalirudin versus Heparin in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Rationale and Methodology

BACKGROUND

 Individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of periprocedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported conflicting results. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to adjust for confounders, explore heterogeneity, or identify subgroups that may particularly benefit or be harmed.

OBJECTIVE

 To overcome these limitations, we sought to develop an individual patient-data pooled database of RCTs comparing bivalirudin versus heparin.

METHODS

 We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs in which ≥1,000 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing PCI were randomized to bivalirudin versus heparin.

RESULTS

 From 738 identified studies, 8 RCTs met the prespecified criteria. The principal investigators of each study agreed to provide patient-level data. The data were pooled and checked for accuracy against trial publications, with discrepancies addressed by consulting with the trialists. Consensus-based definitions were created to resolve differing antithrombotic, procedural, and outcome definitions. The project required 3.5 years to complete, and the final database includes 27,409 patients (13,346 randomized to bivalirudin and 14,063 randomized to heparin).

CONCLUSION

 We have created a large individual patient database of bivalirudin versus heparin RCTs in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. This endeavor may help identify the optimal periprocedural anticoagulation regimen for patient groups with different relative risks of adverse ischemic versus bleeding events, including those with ST-segment and non-ST-segment elevation MI, radial versus femoral access, use of a prolonged bivalirudin infusion or glycoprotein inhibitors, and others. Adherence to standardized techniques and rigorous validation processes should increase confidence in the accuracy and robustness of the results.

Safety and efficacy of bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes with positive biomarkers undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy trial

OBJECTIVES

There are limited data on bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) with positive biomarkers of myocardial necrosis (troponin and/or creatine kinase-myocardial band isoenzyme). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with positive biomarkers from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared the net adverse clinical events [composite ischemia - (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned ischemic revascularization) - or noncoronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG)-related major bleeding] among patients with biomarker-positive NSTE-ACS in the ACUITY trial overall and by antithrombotic strategy.

RESULTS

Among 13 819 patients with NSTE-ACS enrolled in ACUITY, 4728 patients presented with positive biomarkers and underwent an early invasive strategy. Of those, 1547 were randomized to heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI), 1555 to bivalirudin plus GPI, and 1626 to bivalirudin monotherapy. Compared with biomarker-negative patients, biomarker-positive patients had higher 30-day rates of net adverse clinical events (14.0 vs. 12.4%; P = 0.04), all-cause death (1.3 vs. 0.5%; P = 0.001), cardiac death (1.1 vs. 0.5%; P = 0.005), and non-CABG-related major bleeding (6.5 vs. 5.2%, P = 0.03). At 30 days, bivalirudin monotherapy was associated with significantly less non-CABG-related major bleeding (bivalirudin monotherapy 4.1% vs. bivalirudin plus GPI 8.4% vs. heparin plus GPI 7.1%) with comparable rates of composite ischemia (bivalirudin monotherapy 9.2% vs. bivalirudin plus GPI 9.9% vs. heparin plus GPI 8.4%). In a multivariable model, bivalirudin monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in non-CABG-related major bleeding but was not associated with an increased risk of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization or stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Compared with heparin plus GPI or bivalirudin plus GPI, bivalirudin monotherapy provides similar protection from ischemic events with less major bleeding at 30 days among patients with NSTE-ACS and positive biomarkers.

Clinical outcomes after TAVR with heparin or bivalirudin as periprocedural anticoagulation in patients with and without peripheral arterial disease: Results from the BRAVO-3 randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with and without peripheral artery disease (PAD) in the BRAVO-3 trial with respect to the effect of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH).

BACKGROUND

PAD is found frequently in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and is reported to confer an increased risk of adverse events. It is unknown whether patients with and without PAD may demonstrate a differential response to bivalirudin versus UFH.

METHODS

BRAVO-3 was a randomized multicenter trial comparing transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus UFH (31 centers, n = 802). Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were a composite of 30-day death, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accidents (CVA). Net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE) were a composite of major bleeding or MACE.

RESULTS

The total cohort included 119 patients with PAD. Vascular complications occurred significantly more frequently in patients with PAD both in-hospital (25.2 vs. 16.7%; OR 1.68) and at 30 days (29.4 vs. 17.3%; OR 1.99). No significant differences were observed regarding mortality, NACE, MACE, major bleeding or CVA with bivalirudin versus UFH among patients with or without PAD. In patients with PAD, bivalirudin was associated with an increased risk of minor vascular complications at 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with PAD undergoing transfemoral TAVR did not exhibit an increased risk of any major adverse events, according to the procedural anticoagulant randomization. However, patients treated with Bivalirudin had significantly higher rates of minor vascular complications.

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Lesion Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) present with multivessel disease (MVD). There is uncertainty in the role of complete coronary revascularization in this group of patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of complete revascularization compared with culprit vessel-only intervention in a large contemporary cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for NSTEMI.

METHODS

The authors undertook an observational cohort study of 37,491 NSTEMI patients treated between 2005 and 2015 at the 8 heart attack centers in London. Clinical details were recorded at the time of the procedure into local databases using the British Cardiac Intervention Society (BCIS) PCI dataset. A total of 21,857 patients (58.3%) presented with NSTEMI and MVD. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 4.1 years (interquartile range: 2.2 to 5.8 years).

RESULTS

A total of 11,737 (53.7%) patients underwent single-stage complete revascularization during PCI for NSTEMI, rates that significantly increased during the study period (p = 0.006). Those patients undergoing complete revascularization were older and more likely to be male, diabetic, have renal disease and a history of previous myocardial infarction/revascularization compared with the culprit-only revascularization group. Although crude, in-hospital major adverse cardiac event rates were similar (5.2% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.462) between the 2 groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significant differences in mortality rates between the 2 groups (22.5% complete revascularization vs. 25.9% culprit vessel intervention; p = 0.0005) during the follow-up period. After multivariate Cox analysis (hazard ratio: 0.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.85 to 0.97) and the use of propensity matching (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 0.98) complete revascularization was associated with reduced mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In NSTEMI patients with MVD, despite higher initial (in-hospital) mortality rates, single-stage complete coronary revascularization appears to be superior to culprit-only vessel PCI in terms of long-term mortality rates. This supports the need for further randomized study to confirm these findings.

Integrin ß1 polymorphisms and bleeding risk after coronary artery stenting

Bleeding complications following percutaneous coronary intervention associate with increased mortality. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms are insufficiently understood. Platelet recruitment and activation at sites of vascular injury depends on the function of integrin adhesion receptors. Besides GPIIbIIIa as the most abundant integrin receptor, platelets relevantly express ß1 integrins. Experimental evidence from in vivo studies suggests a significant role of ß1 integrins in primary haemostasis. However, little is known about the clinical impact of genetic alterations of the β1 subunit, which might contribute to bleeding complications in patients. In this study, we performed DNA sequencing of patients suffering from bleeding complications after coronary artery stenting according to TIMI or BARC classification. We isolated DNA samples from 741 patients out of a cohort from 14,160 patients recruited in seven randomized clinical trials between June 2000 and May 2011. Subsequently, Sanger sequencing was performed covering the β1 integrin cytoplasmic activation domain (exon16) and its non-coding upstream region. Out of 764 patients suffering from bleeding complications, 741 DNA samples were successfully sequenced. Genotype variation was detected for SNP rs2153875 located within the non-coding upstream region with following allele frequency in study population: CC (7.3%), CA (35%) and AA (57.8%), which is similar to a general population cohort. Further, genotype variation in SNP rs2153875 do not associate with the frequency of TIMI or BARC classified access or non-access site bleedings. Genotype variations of the β1 integrin activation domain do not associate with bleeding risk after PCI.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: A prespecified subgroup analysis from VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART

AIMS

In the Bivalirudin versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated according to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial (VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART), bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. We assessed whether the access site had an impact on the primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days and whether it interacted with bivalirudin/unfractionated heparin.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 6006 patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised to either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Arterial access was left to the operator discretion. Overall, 90.5% of patients underwent transradial access and 9.5% transfemoral access. Baseline risk was higher in transfemoral access. The unadjusted hazard ratio for the primary outcome was lower with transradial access (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.67, p<0.001) and remained lower after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.84, p<0.001). Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.60, p<0.001) and major bleeding (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.75, p<0.001). There was no interaction between treatment with bivalirudin and access site for the primary endpoint (p=0.976) or major bleeding (p=0.801).

CONCLUSIONS

Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days. Bivalirudin was not associated with less bleeding, irrespective of access site.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

INTRODUCTION

Bivalirudin and heparin are the two most commonly used anticoagulants used during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). The results of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in the era of radial access are controversial, questioning the positive impact of bivalirudin on bleeding. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the results of RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin with or without Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (GPI).

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA statements for reporting systematic reviews. We searched the National Library of Medicine PubMed, Clinicaltrial.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to include clinical studies comparing bivalirudin with heparin in patients undergoing PCI. Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed for the summary.

FINDINGS

Several RCTs and meta-analyses have demonstrated the superiority of bivalirudin over heparin plus routine GPI use in terms of preventing bleeding complications but at the expense of increased risk of ischemic complications such as stent thrombosis. The hypothesis of post- PCI bivalirudin infusion to mitigate the risk of acute stent thrombosis has been tested in various RCTs with conflicting results. In comparison, heparin offers the advantage of having a reversible agent, of lower cost and reduced incidence of ischemic complications.

CONCLUSION

Bivalirudin demonstrates its superiority over heparin plus GPI with better clinical outcomes in terms of less bleeding complications, thus making it as anticoagulation of choice particularly in patients at high risk of bleeding. Further studies are warranted for head to head comparison of bivalirudin to heparin monotherapy to establish an optimal heparin dosing regimen and post-PCI bivalirudin infusion to affirm its beneficial effect in reducing acute stent thrombosis.

Traces of statistical learning in the brain's functional connectivity after artificial language exposure

Our environment is full of statistical regularities, and we are attuned to learn about these regularities by employing Statistical Learning (SL), a domain-general ability that enables the implicit detection of probabilistic regularities in our surrounding environment. The role of brain connectivity on SL has been previously explored, highlighting the relevance of structural and functional connections between frontal, parietal, and temporal cortices. However, whether SL can induce changes in the functional connections of the resting state brain has yet to be investigated. To address this question, we applied a pre-post design where participants (n = 38) were submitted to resting-state fMRI acquisition before and after in-scanner exposure to either an artificial language stream (formed by 4 concatenated words) or a random audio stream. Our results showed that exposure to an artificial language stream significantly changed (corrected p < 0.05) the functional connectivity between Right Posterior Cingulum and Left Superior Parietal Lobule. This suggests that functional connectivity between brain networks supporting attentional and working memory processes may play an important role in statistical learning.

Intravenous antiplatelet therapies (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors and cangrelor) in percutaneous coronary intervention: from pharmacology to indications for clinical use

Oral antiplatelet drugs are crucially important for patients with acute coronary syndrome or stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In recent decades, several clinical trials have focused on reducing periprocedural ischemic events in patients undergoing PCI by means of more rapid platelet inhibition with the use of intravenous antiplatelet drugs. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPIs) block the final common pathway of platelet aggregation and enable potent inhibition in the peri-PCI period. In recent years, however, the use of GPIs has decreased due to bleeding concerns and the availability of more potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Cangrelor is an intravenous P2Y12 receptor antagonist. In a large-scale regulatory trial, cangrelor administration during PCI allowed for rapid, potent and rapidly reversible inhibition of platelet aggregation, with an anti-ischemic benefit and no increase in major bleeding. This article aims to provide an overview of general pharmacology, supporting evidence and current status of intravenous antiplatelet therapies (GPIs and cangrelor), with a focus on contemporary indications for their clinical use.