An objective comparison between bivalirudin and heparin during peripheral vascular interventions

Impact of Tirofiban on Serum Troponin Changes in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optional periprocedural antithrombotic management for carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still debated.

METHODS

We aimed to compare the procedural and 1-month outlook of patients undergoing CAS with tirofiban as parenteral antiplatelet therapy. We retrospectively compared patients receiving tirofiban during CAS versus those undergoing CAS without tirofiban, using propensity score matching. Ancillary antithrombotic therapy included in all patients aspirin, clopidogrel, and unfractioned heparin. The primary outcome was the change in serum troponin from baseline to postprocedural peak levels. A total of 30 patients undergoing CAS were included, 15 receiving tirofiban on top of heparin and dual oral antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 15 receiving only heparin and DAPT. Bail-out use of tirofiban was an exclusion criterion.

RESULTS

Baseline troponin was 3.00 (0.06; 5.20) ng/mL in the tirofiban group vs. 4.6 (0.02; 13.10) ng/mL in the no-tirofiban group (P = 0.229), and postprocedural peak 3.5 (0.06; 5.50) ng/mL vs. 6.30 (0.09; 28.40) ng/mL (P = 0.191). Peak-baseline difference in troponin was lower in the tirofiban group than in the no-tirofiban group: 0.3 (0.00; 1.7) ng/mL vs. 1.3 (0.01; 10.00) ng/mL (P = 0.044); the relative peak-baseline change in troponin was analogously different: 24.3% (0%; 44.7%) vs. 50% (21.3%; 80.0%) (P = 0.039). No case of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack occurred during in-hospital stay or at 1-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Tirofiban during CAS might provide periprocedural myocardial protection and reduce myocardial injury as determined by serial troponin measurements.

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous peripheral interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Bivalirudin may be an effective alternative anticoagulant to heparin for use in percutaneous peripheral interventions. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing percutaneous peripheral intervention.

Methods

For this meta-analysis and systematic review, we conducted a search in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane for all the clinical studies in which bivalirudin was compared to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant in percutaneous peripheral interventions. Outcomes studied included all-cause mortality, all-bleeding, major and minor bleeding, and access site complications.

Results

Eleven studies were included in the analysis, totaling 20,137 patients. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.87), all-bleeding (risk ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.78), major bleeding (risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.96), minor bleeding (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.47–0.92), and access site complications (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.84). There was no significant difference in peri-procedural need for blood transfusions (risk ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.08), myocardial infarction (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.59–1.28), stroke (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–1.01), intracranial bleeding (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.29–2.02), or amputations (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53–1.05).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis suggests that bivalirudin use for percutaneous peripheral interventions is associated with lower all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications as compared to heparin. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm the current results.