4.7 Article

Bivalirudin or Heparin in Patients Undergoing Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 71, 期 11, 页码 1231-1242

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.033

关键词

acute coronary syndrome; bivalirudin; GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor; heparin; MATRIX

资金

  1. Societa Italiana di Cardiologia Invasiva (GISE)
  2. Medicines Company
  3. TERUMO
  4. Cardiopath PhD program
  5. Bayer Health Care
  6. Daiichi-Sankyo
  7. AstraZeneca
  8. Chiesi
  9. Boeringher Ingelheim
  10. Bayer
  11. Pfizer
  12. OrbusNeich
  13. Biosensors
  14. AbbottVascular
  15. Amgen
  16. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  17. Medtronic
  18. Boston Scientific
  19. Abbott
  20. St. Jude
  21. CID Alvimedica
  22. Abbott Vascular
  23. AB Medica
  24. St. Jude Medical
  25. Stentys
  26. Eli Lilly
  27. Bracco
  28. Biotronick
  29. St. Jude Vascular

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Contrasting evidence exists on the comparative efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in relation to the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). OBJECTIVES This study assessed the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared with UFH with or without GPIs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent invasive management. METHODS In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX) program, 7,213 patients were randomly assigned to receive either bivalirudin or UFH with or without GPIs at discretion of the operator. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (a composite of MACEs or major bleeding). RESULTS Among 3,603 patients assigned to receive UFH, 781 (21.7%) underwent planned treatment with GPI before coronary intervention. Bailout use of GPIs was similar between the bivalirudin and UFH groups (4.5% and 5.4%) (p = 0.11). At 30 days, the 2 coprimary endpoints of MACEs and NACEs, as well as individual endpoints of mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or stroke did not differ among the 3 groups after adjustment. Compared with the UFH and UFH+GPI groups, bivalirudin reduced bleeding, mainly the most severe bleeds, including fatal and nonaccess site-related events, as well as transfusion rates and the need for surgical access site repair. These findings were not influenced by the administered intraprocedural dose of UFH and were confirmed at multiple sensitivity analyses, including the randomly allocated access site. CONCLUSIONS In patients with ACS, the rates of MACEs and NACEs were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with UFH, irrespective of planned GPI use. However, bivalirudin significantly reduced bleeding complications, mainly those not related to access site, irrespective of planned use of GPIs. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627) (c) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据