Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Monotherapy in Elderly Patients With Myocardial Infarction: A Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART Trial

Paper II: thematic framework analysis of registry-based randomized controlled trials provided insights for designing trial ready registries

OBJECTIVES

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) are increasingly used, promising to address challenges associated with traditional randomized controlled trials. We identified strengths and limitations reported in planned and completed RRCTs to inform future RRCTs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted an environmental scan of literature discussing conceptual or methodological strengths and limitations of using registries for trial design and conduct (n = 12), followed by an analysis of RRCT protocols (n = 13) and reports (n = 77) identified from a scoping review. Using framework analysis, we developed and refined a conceptual framework of RRCT-specific strengths and limitations. We mapped and interpreted strengths and limitations discussed by authors of RRCT articles using framework codes and quantified the frequencies at which these were mentioned.

RESULTS

Our conceptual framework identified six main RRCT strengths and four main RRCT limitations. Considering implications for RRCT conduct and design, we formulated ten recommendations for registry designers, administrators, and trialists planning future RRCTs.

CONCLUSION

Consideration and application of empirically underpinned recommendations for future registry design and trial conduct may help trialists utilize registries and RRCTs to their full potential.

Acute, periprocedural and longterm antithrombotic therapy in older adults: 2022 Update by the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis

The first international guidance on antithrombotic therapy in the elderly came from the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis in 2015. This same group has updated its previous report on antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs for older patients with acute or chronic coronary syndromes, atrial fibrillation, or undergoing surgery or procedures typical of the elderly (transcatheter aortic valve implantation and left atrial appendage closure). The aim is to provide a succinct but comprehensive tool for readers to understand the bases of antithrombotic therapy in older patients, despite the complexities of comorbidities, comedications and uncertain ischaemic- vs. bleeding-risk balance. Fourteen updated consensus statements integrate recent trial data and other evidence, with a focus on high bleeding risk. Guideline recommendations, when present, are highlighted, as well as gaps in evidence. Key consensus points include efforts to improve medical adherence through deprescribing and polypill use; adoption of universal risk definitions for bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke and cause-specific death; multiple bleeding-avoidance strategies, ranging from gastroprotection with aspirin use to selection of antithrombotic-drug composition, dosing and duration tailored to multiple variables (setting, history, overall risk, age, weight, renal function, comedications, procedures) that need special consideration when managing older adults.

Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Management of Coronary Artery Disease in the Elderly

Elderly patients over the age of ≥ 75 years are especially susceptible to coronary artery disease (CAD) as age is an important nonmodifiable risk factors for atherosclerosis and a predictor of poorer outcomes. In fact, CAD is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in this population. Due to concerns of functional frailty, comorbidities, and patient preference of conservative to no treatment have played a role in reducing the interest in pursuing prospective studies in this high-risk group. In this review, we provide an overview of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of CAD in older adults.

Features of Parenteral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients With Myocardial Infarction According to the Russian Register of Acute Myocardial Infarction – REGION-IM

Aim      To study specific features of the parenteral anticoagulant therapy for acute myocardial infarction (MI) in the Russian Federation and to evaluate the consistency of the prescribed parenteral anticoagulant therapy with the effective clinical guidelines.

Material and methods  REGION-MI, the Russian rEGIstry for acute myOcardial iNfarction, is a multicenter observational study. This registry includes all patients admitted to hospitals with a documented diagnosis of ST-elevation acute MI (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute MI (NSTEMI) based on the criteria of the Forth Universal Definition of MI of the European Society of Cardiology. Risk of bleeding was assessed with the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) scale, and risk of major bleeding in patients with NSTEMI was additionally assessed with the CRUSADE scale.

Results From November 01, 2020 through April 03, 2022, 5025 patients were included into the REGION-MI registry. At primary vascular departments, 70.5% of patients were administered unfractionated heparin (NFH); at regional vascular centers, 37.1 % of patients were administered NFH, 29.6 % enoxaparin, 20,2% NFH in combination with enoxaparin, 6.8 % fondaparinux, 4.2 % NFH in combination with fondaparinux, and 1.9 % nadroparin. At the prehospital stage, NFH was used as an anticoagulant support for the thrombolytic therapy (TLT) in 84% of patients, and low-molecular heparins (LMH) were used in 16 %. At the hospital stage, UFH was administered to 64.4 % of patients, and enoxaparin was administered to 23.9 % of patients. Among the patients who had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 40 % received NFH, 25 % enoxaparin, 22 % NFH in combination with enoxaparin, 7 % fondaparinux, and 4 % NFH in combination with fondaparinux. In conservative and invasive tactics of therapy for NSTEMI, NFH was also administered more frequently (43 and 43 %, respectively), followed by (according to frequency of administration) enoxaparin (36 and 34 %, respectively), NFH in combination with enoxaparin (10 and 16 %, respectively), fondaparinux (7 and 6 %, respectively), and NFH in combination with fondaparinux (3 and 1 %, respectively).

Conclusion      According to the Russian registry of acute MI, REGION-MI, with all strategies for the treatment of MI, parenteral anticoagulants are not prescribed in full consistency with clinical guidelines. The most frequently used parenteral anticoagulant is NFH. Despite the high efficacy and safety of fondaparinux, the frequency of its administration remains unjustifiably low not only in the Russian Federation but also in other countries. The same can be said about the administration of enoxaparin to patients who had received TLT. Attention should be paid to physicians’ awareness of recent clinical guidelines, to minimize the prehospital treatment with parenteral anticoagulants, to limit this treatment to the TLT support, and to provide continuity between all stages of medical care.

Validation of the 4-Item PRECISE-DAPT Score: A SWEDEHEART Study

Background

The Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE‐DAPT) score has been shown to predict out‐of‐hospital major bleeding after myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, large validation studies have been scarce and the discriminative ability for patients with a preexisting bleeding risk factor (elderly, underweight, women, anemia, kidney dysfunction, or cancer) in a real‐world setting is unknown.

Methods and Results

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017 were included from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web System for Enhancement of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry (n=66 295). The predictive value of the PRECISE‐DAPT score for rehospitalization with major bleeding during dual antiplatelet therapy was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analyses. A high PRECISE‐DAPT score (≥25; n=13 894) was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (3.9% versus 1.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0–2.5; P<0.001) compared with a non‐high score (<25; n=52 401). The score demonstrated a c‐statistic of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.63–0.66). The discriminative ability of the score to further stratify bleeding risk in patients with preexisting bleeding risk factors was poor, especially in patients who are elderly (c‐statistic=0.57; 95% CI, 0.55–0.60) or underweight (c‐statistic=0.56; 95% CI, 0.51–0.61), for whom a non‐high PRECISE‐DAPT score was associated with similar bleeding risk as a high PRECISE‐DAPT score in the general myocardial infarction population.

Conclusions

In this nationwide population‐based study, the PRECISE‐DAPT score performed moderately in the general myocardial infarction population and poorly in patients with preexisting bleeding risk factors, where its usefulness seems limited.

A meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis of bivalirudin versus heparin in high-risk patients for percutaneous coronary intervention

This meta‐analysis was performed to compare the safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomic of bivalirudin versus heparin in high‐risk patients for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Earlier meta‐analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin during PCI demonstrated that bivalirudin caused less bleeding with more stent thrombosis. However, little data were available on the safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in high‐risk patients for PCI. Thus, we performed a meta‐analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety in the “high‐risk” patients. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to July 30, 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were all‐cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE); secondary outcomes were major and minor bleeding, followed by a cost‐minimization analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin using a local drug and medical costs reported in China. Subgroup analysis was based on the type of disease of the high‐risk population. Finally, a total of 10 randomized controlled trials involved 42,699 patients were collected. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was employed to appraise the research quality. No significant difference was noted between bivalirudin and heparin regarding all‐cause death and MACE. However, subgroup analysis showed that bivalirudin caused less major bleeding in female (OR:0.65, 95% CI:0.53–0.79), diabetes (OR:0.55, 95%CI:0.42–0.73), and CKD (OR:0.59, 95%CI:0.63–1.65). The scatterers of the included literature were approximately symmetrical, and no research was outside the funnel plot. Additionally, cost‐minimization analysis showed that heparin was likely to represent a cost‐effective option compared with bivalirudin in China, with potential savings of 2129.53 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for one PCI. Overall, the meta‐analysis showed that although bivalirudin appeared to have a lower risk of major bleeding rate, the overall effectiveness and safety between the two groups showed no significant difference in high‐risk patients for PCI. But the results of the cost‐minimization analysis showed that heparin could be a potential cost‐saving drug than bivalirudin in patients for PCI in China.