4.7 Article

Profile of bleeding and ischaemic complications with bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin after percutaneous coronary intervention†

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 290-296

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn586

关键词

Bivalirudin; Bleeding; Coronary artery disease; Heparin; Myocardial infarction; Percutaneous coronary intervention

资金

  1. Nycomed Pharma, Unterschleiaheim, Germany
  2. Deutsches Herzzentrum, Munich, Germany [KKF 1.1-05, 984323]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to identify a subset of patients at high risk of bleeding or myocardial infarction from a percutaneous coronary intervention and to investigate whether such high-risk subsets derive preferential benefit from heparin or bivalirudin. This study included 4570 patients with coronary artery disease enrolled in the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment trial and randomized to receive bivalirudin or heparin. Primary outcomes were in-hospital incidence of major bleeding and 30-day incidence of myocardial infarction. Major bleeding, myocardial infarction, and bleeding plus myocardial infarction occurred in 140, 204, and 34 patients, respectively. Older age, female sex, lower body weight, low cholesterol, multi-lesion intervention, complex lesions, and heparin therapy were independent correlates of increased risk of bleeding. Multi-lesion intervention, unstable angina, and lower body weight correlated independently with increased risks of myocardial infarction. Compared with heparin, bivalirudin was associated with a reduction in major bleeding (3.1 vs. 4.6%, P = 0.008), but mostly in low-risk patients. A reduction in the bleeding risk inversely correlated with an increase in the risk of myocardial infarction with bivalirudin (R = -0.61). Bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin have a differential effect on risk of bleeding and myocardial infarction across various subsets of patients.

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