Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin application during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in older patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Objective

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is the most serious type of acute coronary syndrome. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin application during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in older patients with acute STEMI.

Methods

A total of 672 older patients with STEMI (>75 years) who underwent PPCI were studied. The primary endpoints were 30-day net adverse clinical events (NACEs) post-emergency percutaneous coronary intervention, including major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grades 2 to 5 (BARC 2–5) bleeding events.

Results

The incidence of NACEs and BARC 2–5 bleeding events in the bivalirudin group was significantly lower than that in the unfractionated heparin group. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that bivalirudin significantly reduced 30-day NACEs (odds ratio: 0.700, 95% confidence interval: 0.492–0.995) and BARC 2–5 bleeding events (odds ratio: 0.561, 95% confidence interval: 0.343–0.918). At 1-year follow-up, these results were similar.

Conclusions

Bivalirudin can be safely and effectively used during PPCI in older patients with STEMI. Bivalirudin reduces the risks of NACEs and bleeding within 30 days after PPCI, without increasing the risks of MACCEs and stent thrombosis compared with heparin.

The role of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes and the interference with anemia

The role played by glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) has continuously evolved until the most recent Guidelines whereby they were stepped down from class I to class II recommendation for treating acute coronary syndromes (ACS). GPI compete with a wider use of ADP inhibitors and novel anticoagulant drugs although GPI use has greatly narrowed. However, GPI may still have a role. Several criteria were proposed to define post-PCI anemia which is strictly related to bleeding and transfusion. In ACS, it should be important to define anemia in comparative terms versus baseline levels: ≥ 15% of red blood cell decrease should be a practical cut-off value. If one wishes to concentrate on hemoglobin (Hb), a≥2g/dl Hb decrease from baseline should be considered. It is important to recognize post-PCI anemia in the setting of ACS. There are sub-populations exposed to short-term hemorrhagic and/or long-term ischemic risks. Ischemic and hemorrhagic risks need to be carefully evaluated along with thrombocytopenia and its prognostic significance in order to put all these blood and rheological parameters into a clinically oriented perspective on which therapeutical decisions should be based. Definition of high risk procedures (complexity, angiographic characteristics and patient's risk profile, regardless whether STEMI or NSTEMI) may help selecting GPI. There are positive elements in GPI use: efficacy, rapid onset and reversibility of action, absence of pharmacogenomic variability, pharmacoeconomic considerations and the possibility of intracoronary administration. All these elements should be evaluated when selecting these agents for therapeutics.