Factors Affecting Bleeding and Stent Thrombosis in Clinical Trials Comparing Bivalirudin With Heparin During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Bivalirudin versus heparin in STEMI after BRIGHT-4 trial: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of bivalirudin-based anticoagulation over heparin-based anticoagulation for coronary percutaneous intervention has been debated for a long time. Multiple trials have shown promising benefits of bivalirudin over heparin therapy with the most recent addition being the BRIGHT-4 trial. We performed a meta-analysis to assess evidence from these trials, focusing on the coronary intervention of the STEMI population.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed based on PRISMA guidelines after registering in PROSPERO (CRD42023394701). Databases were searched for relevant articles published before January 2023. Pertinent data from the included studies were extracted and analyzed using RevMan v5.4.

RESULTS

Out of 2375 studies evaluated, 13 randomized control trials with 24 360 acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients were included for analysis. The bivalirudin-based anticoagulation reduced the net clinical events (OR 0.75, CI 0.61-0.92), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (OR 0.85, CI 0.74-0.98), any bleeding (OR 0.61, CI 0.45-0.83), major bleeding (OR 0.54, CI 0.39-0.75), all-cause mortality (OR 0.79, CI 0.67-0.92) and cardiac mortality (OR 0.78, CI 0.65-0.93) significantly without increasing the risk of any stent thrombosis (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52-1.61), definite stent thrombosis (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.62-2.22) and acute stent thrombosis (OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.69-6.09) significantly at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion-based anticoagulation during STEMI PCI has significant benefits over heparin therapy for cardiovascular outcomes without a significant increase in the risk of thrombotic outcomes.

Unravelling the puzzle of antithrombotic therapies for complex percutaneous coronary intervention

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has remarkably evolved in the last decades. This has resulted in a larger number of patients treated with PCI, including those with more complex anatomic lesions. Several studies demonstrated that PCI involving complex lesions is associated with increased rate of procedural complications and adverse clinical outcomes. In this setting, optimal adjunctive antithrombotic regimens still need to be defined. In this review, we sought to summarize and discuss the recent evidence deriving from analyses appraising antithrombotic therapies in patients undergoing complex PCI.

Differential Use and Impact of Bleeding Avoidance Strategies on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Related Bleeding Stratified by Predicted Risk

BACKGROUND

Procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin (BIV), trans-radial intervention (TRI), and use of a vascular closure device (VCD) are thought to mitigate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related bleeding. We compared the impact of these bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) for PCIs stratified by bleeding risk.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of PCIs from 18 facilities within one health care system from 2009Q3 to 2017Q4. Bleeding risk was assessed per the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model, with procedures stratified into 6 categories (first, second, third quartiles, 75th-90th, 90th-97.5th, and top 2.5th percentiles). Regression models were used to assess the impact of BAS on bleeding outcome.

RESULTS

Of 74 953 PCIs, 9.4% used no BAS, 12.0% used BIV alone, 20.8% used TRI alone, 26.8% used VCD alone, 5.4% used TRI+BIV, and 25.6% used VCD+BIV. The crude bleeding rate was 4.4% overall. Only 2 comparisons showed significant trends across all risk strata: VCD+BIV versus no BAS, odds ratio (95% CI) range: first quartile, 0.36 (0.18-0.72) to top 2.5th percentile, 0.50 (0.32-0.78); TRI versus no BAS, odds ratio (95% CI) range: first quartile, 0.15 (0.06-0.38) to top 2.5th percentile, 0.49 (0.28-0.86). TRI had lower odds of bleeding compared with BIV for all risk strata except the top 2.5th percentile. Addition of BIV to TRI did not change the odds of bleeding for any risk strata. Factors potentially limiting use of TRI (renal failure, shock, cardiac arrest, and mechanical circulatory support) were present in ≤10% of procedures below the 90th percentile.

CONCLUSIONS

Among individual BAS, only TRI had consistently lower odds of bleeding across all risk strata. Factors potentially limiting TRI were found infrequently in procedures below the 90th percentile of bleeding risk. For transfemoral PCI, VCD+BIV had lower odds of bleeding compared with no BAS across all risk strata.

Practice Patterns and In-Hospital Outcomes Associated With Bivalirudin Use Among Patients With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States

BACKGROUND

Practice patterns in anticoagulant strategies used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States for patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and the comparative outcomes between bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) have not been well described.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Trends in anticoagulant use were examined among 553 562 PCIs performed by 9254 operators at 1538 hospitals for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction from 2009 to 2014 within the CathPCI Registry. To compare bivalirudin with UFH, propensity score matching and instrumental variable (IV) methods with operator preference for bivalirudin as the instrument were used. To determine whether differences in outcomes were because of differences in glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) use, a test of mediation was performed using the IV. Outcomes were in-hospital bleeding and mortality. Bivalirudin use increased from 2009 to 2013 but declined during 2014. GPI use was 50.5% during UFH PCIs and 12.0% during bivalirudin PCIs. Before GPI adjustment, bleeding reductions with bivalirudin ranged from 2.04% (IV: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.81%, 2.27%) to 2.29% (propensity score: 95% CI: 2.14%, 2.44%) and mortality reductions ranged from 0.16% (IV: 95% CI: 0.03%, 0.28%) to 0.25% (propensity score: 95% CI: 0.17%, 0.33%). After GPI adjustment in the IV, more than half the bleeding reduction with bivalirudin was because of the lower use of GPIs (risk difference, -0.84%; 95% CI: -1.11%, -0.57%), and no survival benefit was apparent (risk difference, -0.10%; 95% CI: -0.24%, 0.05%). Bleeding reductions with bivalirudin were largest for transfemoral PCI (GPI-adjusted risk difference, -1.11%; 95% CI: -1.43%, -0.80%) and negligible for transradial PCI (GPI-adjusted risk difference, 0.09%; 95% CI: -0.32%, 0.50%).

CONCLUSIONS

In the largest comparative analysis of bivalirudin versus UFH for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction to date, bivalirudin was associated with lower in-hospital bleeding and mortality given current practices with respect to GPI use and access site. Bleeding differences were, in part, explained by the greater use of GPIs with UFH. Reductions in bleeding were largest among those undergoing transfemoral PCI, whereas no bleeding benefit was observed for those treated with transradial PCI.

Efficiency and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention via radial access: A subgroup analysis from the bivalirudin in acute myocardial infarction versus heparin and GPI plus heparin trial

OBJECTIVES

To explore the efficiency and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention via radial access.

BACKGROUND

Bivalirudin reduces bleeding risks over heparin in patients undergoing PCI. However, bleeding advantages of bivalirudin in patients undergoing transradial intervention is uncertain.

METHODS

In the BRIGHT trial, 1,723 patients underwent emergency PCI via radial access, with 576 patients in the bivalirudin arm, 576 in the heparin arm and 571 in the heparin plus tirofiban arm. The primary outcome was 30-day net adverse clinical event (NACE), defined as a composite of major cardiac and cerebral events or any bleeding.

RESULTS

30-day NACE occurred in 5.7% with bivalirudin, 7.8% with heparin alone (vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.159), and 10.3% with heparin plus tifofiban (vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.004). The 30-day bleeding rate was 0.9% for bivalirudin, 2.3% for heparin (vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.057), and 5.8% for heparin plus tirofiban (vs. bivalirudin, P < 0.001). Major cardiac and cerebral events (4.9 vs. 5.7 vs. 4.6%, P = 0.899), stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.5 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.899) and acquired thrombocytopenia (0.2 vs. 0.5 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.257) at 30 days were similar among three arms. The interaction test for PCI access and randomized treatment showed no significance on all bleeding (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The bleeding benefit of bivalirudin was independent of artery access. Bivalirudin lead to statistical reduction on bleeding risks in comparison to heparin plus tirofiban, and only small numerical difference in comparison to heparin, with comparable risks of ischemic events and stent thrombosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing emergency transradial PCI. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Bivalirudin or heparin for radial access?

Bivalirudin is a reasonable choice during transradial PCI for acute MI when bleeding risk is high and clopidogrel or cangrelor is used Heparin is reasonable during transradial PCI when bleeding risk is low and high-intensity antiplatelet therapy is used Future studies are required to define the utility of post-PCI bivalirudin infusions.

New Approaches to the Role of Thrombin in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Quo Vadis Bivalirudin, a Direct Thrombin Inhibitor?

The pathophysiology of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) involves platelet activation and thrombus formation after the rupture of atherosclerotic plaques. Thrombin is generated at the blood-plaque interface in association with cellular membranes on cells and platelets. Thrombin also amplifies the response to the tissue injury, coagulation and platelet response, so the treatment of ACS is based on the combined use of both antiplatelet (such as aspirin, clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor) and antithrombotic drugs (unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux and bivalirudin). Bivalirudin competitively inhibits thrombin with high affinity, a predictable response from its linear pharmacokinetics and short action. However, a present remarkable controversy exists between the latest main Guidelines in Clinical Practice and the key trials evaluating the use of bivalirudin in ACS. The aim of this review is to update the development of bivalirudin, including pharmacological properties, obtained information from clinical trials evaluating efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in ACS; as well as the recommendations of clinical Guidelines.