Search

Background: The aim of this study was to assess anticoagulation with the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention in individuals with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes., Methods: 13,819 individuals in the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy (ACUITY) trial were prospectively randomly assigned to receive heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, or bivalirudin alone. Of these individuals, 7789 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after angiography. The effect of the three regimens on the primary 30-day endpoints of composite ischaemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularisation for ischaemia), major bleeding, and net clinical outcomes (composite ischaemia or major bleeding) was assessed in this subgroup. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the number NCT00093158., Findings: Of the individuals who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, 2561 received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, 2609 received bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and 2619 received bivalirudin alone. 26 (0.3%) individuals dropped out or were lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in the proportion of individuals with composite ischaemia, major bleeding, or net clinical outcomes at 30 days between those who received bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and those who received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (composite ischaemia: 243 [9%] patients vs 210 [8%] patients, p=0.16; major bleeding: 196 [8%] patients vs 174 [7%] patients, p=0.32; net clinical outcomes: 389 [15%] patients vs 341 [13%] patients, p=0.1). Rates of composite ischaemia were much the same in those who received bivalirudin alone and those who received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (230 [9%] patients vs 210 [8%] patients, p=0.45); however, there were significantly fewer individuals who experienced major bleeding among those who received bivalirudin alone than among those who received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (92 [4%] patients vs 174 [7%] patients, p<0.0001, relative risk 0.52, 95% CI 0.40-0.66), resulting in a trend towards better 30-day net clinical outcomes (303 [12%] patients vs 341 [13%] patients, p=0.057; 0.87, 0.75-1.00)., Interpretation: Substitution of unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin with bivalirudin results in comparable clinical outcomes in patients with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in whom percutaneous coronary intervention is done. Anticoagulation with bivalirudin alone suppresses adverse ischaemic events to a similar extent as does heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, while significantly lowering the risk of major haemorrhagic complications.

Background: Despite the use of aspirin, there is still a risk of ischaemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to find out whether, in addition to aspirin, pretreatment with clopidogrel followed by long-term therapy after PCI is superior to a strategy of no pretreatment and short-term therapy for only 4 weeks after PCI., Methods: 2658 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI in the CURE study had been randomly assigned double-blind treatment with clopidogrel (n=1313) or placebo (n=1345). Patients were pretreated with aspirin and study drug for a median of 6 days before PCI during the initial hospital admission, and for a median of 10 days overall. After PCI, most patients (>80%) in both groups received open-label thienopyridine for about 4 weeks, after which study drug was restarted for a mean of 8 months. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularisation within 30 days of PCI. The main analysis was by intention to treat., Findings: There were no drop-outs. 59 (4.5%) patients in the clopidogrel group had the primary endpoint, compared with 86 (6.4%) in the placebo group (relative risk 0.70 [95% CI 0.50-0.97], p=0.03). Long-term administration of clopidogrel after PCI was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation (p=0.03), and of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (p=0.047). Overall (including events before and after PCI) there was a 31% reduction cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (p=0.002). There was less use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in the clopidogrel group (p=0.001). At follow-up, there was no significant difference in major bleeding between the groups (p=0.64)., Interpretation: In patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving aspirin, a strategy of clopidogrel pretreatment followed by long-term therapy is beneficial in reducing major cardiovascular events, compared with placebo.

Background: The DD genotype for the angiotensin-I converting enzyme (ACE I) deletion allele (D) polymorphism is a possible genetic risk factor for restenosis after coronary stent implantation. We aimed to establish whether or not blockade of ACE with high doses of ACE inhibitors could reduce this risk of angiographic restenosis., Methods: We characterised the ACE I/D polymorphism in 345 consecutive patients who were undergoing coronary stenting. 115 had the DD genotype. We assigned 91 of these 115 patients to quinapril 40 mg daily (n=46) or placebo (n=45). Treatment was started within 48 h after stent implantation and continued for 6 months. 79 patients complied with the protocol and underwent follow-up angiography after 6 months., Findings: Our primary endpoint of late loss in minimum lumen diameter (a quantitative index of restenosis) was significantly higher in the quinapril group than in the controls (mean 1.11 mm [SD 0.70] vs 0.76 mm [0.60]; p=0.018). Secondary endpoints also showed consistent trends towards increased angiographic restenosis in the treatment group., Interpretation: Contrary to our expectations, ACE inhibitor treatment did not reduce restenosis after coronary stent implantation in patients with DD genotype, but was associated with an exaggerated restenotic process when compared with administration of placebo.

Background: Diltiazem reduces non-fatal reinfarction and refractory ischaemia after non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, an acute coronary syndrome similar to the incomplete infarction that occurs after successful reperfusion. We postulated that this agent would reduce cardiac events in patients after acute myocardial infarction treated initially with thrombolytic agents-a clinical application previously unexplored with heart-rate-lowering calcium antagonists., Methods: A prospective, randomised, double-blind, sequential trial was done in 874 patients with acute myocardial infarction, but without congestive heart failure, who first received thrombolytic agents. Patients received either 300 mg oral diltiazem once daily, or placebo, initiated within 36-96 h of infarct onset, and given for up to 6 months. The trial primary endpoint was the cumulative first event rate of cardiac death, non-fatal reinfarction, or refractory ischaemia. Additional prespecified endpoints included several composites of non-fatal cardiac events (non-fatal reinfarction combined with refractory ischaemia, all recurrent ischaemia, or the need for myocardial revascularisation). The diagnosis of ischaemia, whether refractory or recurrent, and the need for myocardial revascularisation, was always based on objective electrocardiographical evidence of ischaemia, either at rest or on exertion., Results: For the trial primary endpoint, 131 events occurred in the 444 placebo patients and 97 events in the 430 diltiazem patients (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02; p=0.07). For non-fatal cardiac events, diltiazem treatment was associated with a relative decrease (0.76; 0.58-1.00) in the combined event rate of non-fatal reinfarction and refractory ischaemia. There was a similar decrease in the composite non-fatal endpoints of non-fatal reinfarction combined with all recurrent ischaemia (0.80; 0.64-1.00) and non-fatal reinfarction combined with the need for myocardial revascularisation (0.67; 0.46-0.96). The need for myocardial revascularisation alone was significantly reduced by 42% (0.61; 0.39-0.96). No major safety issues were encountered., Conclusions: Diltiazem did not reduce the cumulative occurrence of cardiac death, non-fatal reinfarction, or refractory ischaemia during a 6-month follow-up, but did reduce all composite endpoints of non-fatal cardiac events, especially the need for myocardial revascularisation.