Impact of Bivalirudin Use on Outcomes in Nonagenarians Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

One-year outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention in nonagenarians: Insights from the J-PCI OUTCOME registry

BACKGROUND

Nonagenarian patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are increasing, and a few previous studies have reported their long-term outcomes. However, differences in their long-term outcomes between generations remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate 1-year all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) of nonagenarian patients who underwent PCI compared with the other elder patients, using a nationwide registration system.

METHODS

The patient-level data registered between January 2017 and December 2017 was extracted from the J-PCI OUTCOME Registry endorsed by the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT). The one-year all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, MACE, and major bleeding events were identified.

RESULTS

Out of 40,722 patients over 60 years of age, 880 (2.1%) were nonagenarians. For nonagenarians, the 1-year mortality rate was substantial (13.5%). The MACE and CV death rates were also high (8.1%, and 6.8%, respectively) for nonagenarians, and these event rates were approximately 1.5 times higher in nonagenarians than octogenarians. Multivariate regression analysis showed that presentation with cardiogenic shock [hazard ratio (HR) 2.32; 95 confidence intervals (CI): 1.22-4.41], or cardiac arrest (HR 2.91; 90% CI: 1.28-6.62), and use of oral anticoagulants (HR 2.10; 90% CI: 1.07-4.12) were the predictors of 1-year MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the contemporary era, nonagenarians who have undergone PCI still face a considerably increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events that reduces long-term survival. In addition to having poorer lesion characteristics, adverse events, including death, MACEs, and major bleeding, occurred 1.5 times more frequently in nonagenarians than in octogenarians.

Comparison of Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Elderly Patients, Including 10 628 Nonagenarians: Insights From a Japanese Nationwide Registry (J-PCI Registry)

Background Scarce data exist about the outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI ) in old patients. This study sought to provide an overview of PCI in elderly patients, especially nonagenarians, in a Japanese large prospective nationwide registry. Methods and Results We analyzed 562 640 patients undergoing PCI (≥60 years of age) from 1018 Japanese hospitals between 2014 and 2016 in the J-PCI (Japanese percutaneous coronary intervention) registry. Among them, 10 628 patients (1.9%), including 6780 (1.2%) with acute coronary syndrome ( ACS ) and 3848 (0.7%) with stable coronary artery disease, were ≥90 years of age. We investigated differences in characteristics and in-hospital outcomes among sexagenarians, septuagenarians, octogenarians, and nonagenarians. Older patients were more frequently women and had a greater frequency of heart failure and chronic kidney disease than younger patients. In addition, older patients had a higher rate of in-hospital mortality, cardiac tamponade, cardiogenic shock after PCI , and bleeding complications requiring blood transfusion. Nonagenarians had the highest risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 3.60; 95% CI , 3.10-4.18 in ACS ; odds ratio , 6.24; 95% CI, 3.82-10.20 in non- ACS ) and bleeding complications ( odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.35-2.36 in ACS ; odds ratio , 2.70; 95% CI, 1.68-4.35 in non- ACS ) when referenced to sexagenarians. More important, transradial intervention was an inverse independent predictor of both in-hospital mortality and bleeding complications. Conclusions Older patients, especially nonagenarians, carried a greater risk of in-hospital death and bleeding compared with younger patients after PCI . Transradial intervention might contribute to risk reduction for periprocedural complications in elderly patients undergoing PCI .

Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bivalirudin Versus Heparin on Myocardial Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Bivalirudin is an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Previously, we have reported clinical benefit on major bleeding in favor of bivalirudin compared with UFH monotherapy but inconclusive results on mortality. Controversial data have been reported in the last 2 years. We conducted an updated meta-analysis including randomized trials and observational studies, which evaluated ischemic and bleeding outcomes for bivalirudin compared with UFH-only during percutaneous coronary intervention. We included 18 observational studies and 12 randomized trials published from 2003 to 2015. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days including death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization and stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and transfusion. Overall, we found a significant risk reduction with bivalirudin for major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 0.71, p <0.0001) and for transfusion (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95, p = 0.01) and similar risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12, p = 0.80). However, there was a substantial increased risk of stent thrombosis associated with bivalirudin (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.08, p = 0.009). No impact on mortality was found. Meta-regression analyses on major bleeding suggested that bivalirudin was more effective than UFH at doses >60 IU/kg and independent of radial access. In conclusion, compared with UFH monotherapy, bivalirudin remains associated with less bleeding risk but higher stent thrombosis risk. Further study remains required to define its role in current antithrombotic armamentarium.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in nonagenarians: pros and cons

Percutaneous coronary intervention is a mainstay in the management of symptomatic or high-risk coronary artery disease. The bulk of clinical evidence and experience underlying this fact relies, however, on relatively young patients. Indeed, few data of very limited quality are available which adequately define the risk-benefit and cost-benefit profile of coronary angioplasty and stenting in very old subjects, such as those of 90 years of age or older (i.e., nonagenarians). The aim of this review is to provide a concise, yet practical, synthesis of the available evidence on percutaneous coronary revascularization in the very elderly. The main arguments elaborated upon are to what extent we can extrapolate findings from studies including younger patients to nonagenarians, whether we should provide higher priority to prognosis or quality of life in such patients, and whether we can afford to allocate vast resources to care for such subjects in an era of financial constraints. Our review of 18 studies and 1082 patients suggest that percutaneous coronary intervention is feasible and associated with acceptable short- and long-term results in this population, which is nonetheless fraught with a high mortality risk irrespective of the revascularization procedure. Accordingly, the pros and cons of percutaneous coronary intervention should be carefully weighed when considering this treatment in nonagenarians.

Meta-analysis comparing bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy on ischemic and bleeding outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention

With femoral access, bivalirudin decreases risks of major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and provides better net clinical benefit compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Whether this benefit exists compared to UFH monotherapy is less clear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes in patients undergoing transfemoral PCI with UFH or bivalirudin. Randomized trials (n = 3) and observational studies (n = 13) comparing bivalirudin to UFH monotherapy were reviewed. Primary outcomes were 30-day rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including death, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent revascularization, as well as all-cause mortality, MI, major bleeding, and blood transfusion. We collected data from 16 studies involving 32,492 patients undergoing PCI. Most observational studies were performed in the United States, whereas all randomized trials were done in Europe. Compared to UFH monotherapy, bivalirudin was associated with similar risk of MACEs (odds ratios [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 1.12), a substantial 45% relative decrease in major bleeding (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.72), and a trend in the decrease of transfusion (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.08). A decrease in mortality was seen in observational studies (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85) but remained inconclusive in randomized trials (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.01). MI rate was similar with the 2 anticoagulants. In conclusion, in patients undergoing transfemoral PCI, the benefit of bivalirudin over UFH monotherapy is driven by a significant decrease in major bleeding with similar rates of MACE. As PCI practice moves toward other bleeding-avoidance strategies such as the radial approach, future studies should focus on the interaction between anticoagulant strategy and access-site choice.