Search

Introduction and Objectives: Patients who are vulnerable to hemodynamic or electrical disorders (VP) are often excluded from clinical trials and data on the optimal access-site or antithrombotic treatment are limited. We assessed outcomes of transradial vs transfemoral access and bivalirudin vs unfractionated heparin (UFH) in VP with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management., Methods: The MATRIX trial randomized 8404 patients to radial or femoral access and 7213 patients to bivalirudin or UFH. Among them, 934 (11.1%) were deemed VP due to advanced Killip class (n = 808), cardiac arrest (n = 168), or both (n = 42). The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACE: death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (NACE: MACE or major bleeding)., Results: MACE and NACE were similarly reduced with radial vs femoral access in VP and non-VP. Transradial access was also associated with consistent relative benefits in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding with greater absolute benefits in VP. The effects of bivalirudin vs UFH on MACE and NACE were consistent in VP and non-VP. Bivalirudin was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in VP but not in non-VP, with borderline interaction testing. Bivalirudin reduced bleeding in both VP and non-VP with a larger absolute benefit in VP., Conclusions: In acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing invasive management, the effects of randomized treatments were consistent in VP and non-VP, but absolute risk reduction with radial access and bivalirudin were greater in VP, with a 5- to 10-fold lower number needed to treat for benefits. Trial registry number: NCT01433627., (Copyright © 2020 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: Contrasting data have been reported on bivalirudin as an anticoagulation strategy during percutaneous coronary interventions, offering theoretical benefits on bleeding complications but raising concerns on a potential increase in the risk of stent thrombosis. We performed an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous interventions for acute coronary syndromes., Methods: Literature archives and main scientific sessions were scanned. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30-day overall mortality. Secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis and major bleeding. A prespecified analysis was conducted according to clinical presentation., Results: Twelve randomized trials were included, involving 32 746 patients (52.5% randomized to bivalirudin). Death occurred in 1.8% of the patients, with no differences between bivalirudin and heparin (odds ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.08; P = .28; P for heterogeneity = .41). Similar results were obtained for patients with non-ST-segment elevation and in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A significantly higher rate of stent thrombosis was observed with bivalirudin (odds ratio = 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.83; P = .008; P for heterogeneity = .09). Bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of major bleeding (odds ratio = 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.75; P < .00001; P for heterogeneity < .0001), which, however, was related to the differential use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (r = -0.02 [-0.033 to -0.0032]; P = .02) and did not translate into survival benefits., Conclusions: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions, bivalirudin is not associated with a reduction in mortality compared with heparin but does increase stent thrombosis. The reduction in bleeding complications observed with bivalirudin does not translate into survival benefits but is rather influenced by a differential use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors., (Copyright © 2016 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Hemorrhage is the most common and best-recognized complication of heparin treatment. However, a potentially more dangerous complication is the development of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). All patients exposed to heparin, irrespective of the dose and route of administration, are at risk of developing HIT. It is due to the formation of antibodies against the heparin-platelet factor 4 complex, which cause secondary activation of platelets, coagulation and, finally, increased thrombin production. The main symptom is the sudden onset of thrombocytopenia involving a drop in the platelet count to less than 50% of the basal level, with or without the appearance of thrombotic complications some 5 to 14 days after the start of heparin therapy. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia can be detected early in patients receiving heparin by monitoring the platelet count. Demonstration of heparin-dependent platelet activation using an antigen or functional assay confirms the clinical diagnosis. Once the diagnosis of HIT has been confirmed serologically or there is a high level of suspicion of HIT, heparin must be suspended and treatment with an alternative anticoagulant should be considered. This review contains a discussion of the diagnosis and treatment of this syndrome.

The acute coronary syndromes (i.e., ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and unstable angina) share a common pathophysiology: the rupture or breakdown of atheromatous plaque superimposed on intracoronary thrombosis (i.e., atherothrombosis). The aim of this review article was to summarize developments occurring during the last year in antithrombotic therapy for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Four specific issues are considered: pretreatment with clopidogrel before percutaneous coronary intervention, antiplatelet resistance, indications for glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients pretreated with clopidogrel, and the role of bivalirudine and fondaparinux in the treatment of these patients.