This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Singh, S. Articles by Arora, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Singh, S. Articles by Arora, R. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Efficacy and Safety of Bivalirudin Versus Heparins in Reduction of Cardiac Outcomes in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Department of Medicine, Chicago Medical School, Illinois

Janos Molnar, MD

Department of Medicine, Chicago Medical School, Illinois

Rohit Arora, MD, FACC

Department of Cardiology, Chicago Medical School, Illinois, rohit.arora{at}va.gov

Recent data suggest that bivalirudin, a reversible direct thrombin inhibitor, may be noninferior to heparins (unfractionated heparin/low molecular weight heparin) in providing protection against cardiovascular events, with significantly fewer bleeding complications. Whether this advantage is consistent has not been fully defined. We evaluated cardiac outcomes with bivalirudin vs the heparins in management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), including patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Formal computer-aided searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry) were performed by scrutiny of the reference lists of trials and review articles, abstracts, meeting proceedings, and the manufacturers of direct thrombin inhibitors. Five randomized controlled trials (BAT, 1995; CACHET, 2002; REPLACE-2, 2003; REPLACE-1, 2004; and ACUITY, 2006) comparing bivalirudin to the heparins in patients with ACS, including patients undergoing PCI, were identified. The meta-analysis consisted of 25 457 patients (bivalirudin, 15 077; heparins, 10 380). The primary safety end point was major bleeding, defined as intracranial, intraocular, or retroperitoneal hemorrhage; clinically overt blood loss leading to a hemoglobin drop exceeding 3 g/dL (or 10% of hematocrit) and transfusion of 2 or more units of whole blood or packed red blood cells. The combined relative risks (RR) across all of the studies and the 95% confidence intervals of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization (bivalirudin vs heparins) were computed using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model, whereas the random-effect model was used for major bleeding. A 2-sided error < .05 was considered to be significant. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the 2 groups. Compared to the heparins, the risk of death, MI, revascularization, and composite ischemic end points were similar with bivalirudin monotherapy. However, the risk of major bleeding was significantly lower with bivalirudin use (RR = 0.553; 95% CI = 0.402-0.761; P = .001). The present meta-analysis suggests that bivalirudin may be noninferior to the heparins in reducing the composite of ischemic end points. Additionally, compared to the heparins, bivalirudin monotherapy may lower the rate of major bleeding.

Key Words: bivalirudin • hirulog • direct thrombin inhibitors • percutaneous coronary intervention • acute coronary syndrome

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?