|Management of patients with unstable angina / non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a critical review of the 2007 ACC /AHA guidelines.|
|Jump to Full Text|
|PMID: 19222616 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE|
|BACKGROUND: In 2007, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) published new guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI). These guidelines include some important updates on the use of clopidogrel, fondaparinux, bivalirudin and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) all of which have published landmark clinical trials in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) since the publication of the 2002 guidelines. While these 2007 guidelines are more comprehensive and up-to-date compared with the recommendations published in 2002, they also raise many questions for practising emergency physicians and cardiologists. METHODS: This article presents a critical review of the 2007 ACC/AHA UA/NSTEMI guidelines, highlighting some of the areas of controversy, with the aim of providing some further guidance to practising physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent updates to the ACC/AHA UA/NSTEMI guidelines, additional factors need to be taken into consideration in the management of UA/NSTEMI patients. Integrating initial responses with early or selectively invasive strategies and the risks of complications in subsequent procedures require careful consideration. Protocol development within an institution is required to risk-stratify patients rapidly, provide optimum precatheterisation medical management and allow seamless and rapid transitions to the catheterisation laboratory in patients at risk for adverse events.|
|J Hoekstra; M Cohen|
Related Documents :
|9987046 - Clinical impact of local implementation of agreed guidelines for the management of pati...
3208216 - Sphenoethmoidal sinusitis complicated by cavernous sinus thrombosis and pontocerebellar...
3764696 - The natural history of splenic infarction.
20081676 - Current guidance on the management of acute coronary syndrome.
2882626 - High-dose acetylsalicylic acid after cerebral infarction. a swedish cooperative study.
15446766 - Empirical assessment of the impact of drug-eluting stents on the rate of use of coronar...
|Type: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Review Date: 2009-02-13|
|Title: International journal of clinical practice Volume: 63 ISSN: 1742-1241 ISO Abbreviation: Int. J. Clin. Pract. Publication Date: 2009 Apr|
|Created Date: 2009-04-01 Completed Date: 2009-07-17 Revised Date: 2009-11-18|
Medline Journal Info:
|Nlm Unique ID: 9712381 Medline TA: Int J Clin Pract Country: England|
|Languages: eng Pagination: 642-55 Citation Subset: IM|
|Department of Emergency Medicine, Wake Forest University Health Science, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.|
|APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex|
Anticoagulants / therapeutic use*
Myocardial Infarction / drug therapy*
Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors / therapeutic use*
Practice Guidelines as Topic / standards*
|0/Anticoagulants; 0/Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors|
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int J Clin Pract
Journal ID (publisher-id): ijcp
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Received Month: 11 Year: 2008
Accepted Month: 12 Year: 2008
Print publication date: Month: 4 Year: 2009
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
First Page: 642 Last Page: 655
PubMed Id: 19222616
|Management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a critical review of the 2007 ACC/AHA guidelines|
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Wake Forest University Health ScienceWinston-Salem, NC, USA
2Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Newark Beth Israel Medical CenterNewark, NJ, USA
|Correspondence: Correspondence to: Marc Cohen, MD, Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, 201 Lyons Avenue, Newark, NJ 07112, USA Tel.: + 19 739 267 852 Fax: + 19 732 820 839 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Disclosures Dr Hoekstra is on a Speaker Bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb, sanofi-aventis and Schering-Plough and a consultant for sanofi-aventis, Schering-Plough and The Medicines Co. Dr Cohen has received research/grant support and honoraria for speaker’s fees, from sanofi-aventis, Schering, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck.
Message for the Clinic
In 2007, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) published new guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) (1). The major revisions in the 2007 guidelines (1) since the 2002 guidelines reflect the growing interest and research into improving outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (2). On patient presentation, it is important to diagnose correctly and risk-stratify according to the guidelines. Some novel biomarkers, e.g. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and risk-assessment models such as the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score, the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) or the Platelet Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT) scores may be useful additions to help physicians correctly risk-stratify their patients. Secondly, the guidelines seem to encourage the use of invasive management, rather than ischaemia-guided management, although there is increasing evidence to encourage appropriate risk stratification before deciding whether patients need to be managed according to a conservative or invasive strategy. There are also new recommendations regarding the use of clopidogrel or GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, which are incorporated in the 2007 guidelines. Furthermore, the Organisation to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndrome (OASIS)-5 (3) and Acute Catheterisation and Urgent Intervention Triage StrategY (ACUITY) (4) trials provide new information regarding the use of fondaparinux and bivalirudin respectively in the management of patients with NSTEMI. This review not only critically evaluates new data from recent trials but also discusses the gaps in the evidence and remaining controversies in the management of patients with NSTEMI (1).
The 2007 ACC/AHA guideline recommendations for early risk stratification (1) remain essentially unchanged since publication of the 2002 guidelines (2). They state that patients should be stratified into one of three groups: low-, moderate- and high-risk, according to their risk factors. These risk factors include anginal symptoms, physical findings, electrocardiogram (ECG) findings and cardiac biomarkers. An early ECG, within 10 min of arrival in the emergency department, receives a class I recommendation (level of evidence: B). Previously, troponin was recommended as a very good predictor of risk (2) and the updated guidelines also mention the use of BNP as a potentially useful biomarkers for risk assessment (class IIb recommendation; level of evidence: B) (1). The TIMI or GRACE risk scores or PURSUIT risk model are recommended as useful for assisting decision-making with regard to treatment options in patients with suspected ACS (class IIa recommendation; level of evidence: B) (1). In addition, the elevated risk of bleeding and adverse events is highlighted for patients with advanced age, female sex and chronic renal insufficiency. However, the new guideline recommendations do not discuss the treatment pathways according to the patients’ risk scores (low-, moderate- and high-risk), but instead, refer to treatment decisions in the context of whether conservative or invasive management strategies are to be employed. This represents a departure from the 2002 guidelines (2) and makes upstream (i.e. before diagnostic angiography) drug treatment decisions difficult, especially when the downstream management strategy is unknown.
The three risk-stratification tools have a number of factors in common, particularly advanced age, ST-segment deviation and elevated cardiac markers. However, they are different in terms of other parameters, their practical application and which outcomes they predict. The GRACE risk model is unsuitable for risk stratification of patients for initial treatment, but can calculate the probability of in-hospital mortality (5) or 6-month postdischarge mortality (6), while the PURSUIT model predicts the rate of 30-day mortality and the composite end-point of death or myocardial (re)infarction (7). The PURSUIT and GRACE risk scores involve a complex calculation of risk, as they include both dichotomous and continuous variables, and require the use of computer-based programs based on published nomograms. A free version of the GRACE risk-assessment tool can be found online (http://www.outcomes-umassmed.org/grace/acs_risk.cfm). The TIMI risk score appears to be the simplest to remember and apply in general clinical practice. Patients are assigned a value of 1 for each prognostic variable and the patients’ total score determines their risk stratum, which is used to predict clinical outcomes and provide a basis for making treatment decisions (8) The TIMI-11B study demonstrated that the rate of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) or severe recurrent ischaemia increased significantly as the TIMI risk score increased (p < 0.001) (8).
At the Wake Forest University Health Science Department of Emergency Medicine, we use a combination of markers, ECG findings and risk scores to determine initial treatment and disposition. Patients with new ST depression, transient elevation or an elevated troponin are automatically considered high risk and treated via an invasive pathway according to the new guidelines. In the absence of ECG or marker changes, we use an adapted TIMI score to stratify patients into high-risk (TIMI score ≥ 4), intermediate-risk (TIMI score 2–3) or low-risk (TIMI score 0–1) ACS. Each of these groups is placed in distinct risk-matched treatment pathways with certain pharmacotherapies and diagnostic or management strategies that are predetermined and correspond to the new guideline recommendations (Figure 1).
An early invasive strategy (e.g. diagnostic angiography with intent to perform revascularisation) is indicated in UA/NSTEMI patients (without serious comorbidities or contraindications to such procedures) who have: either refractory angina or haemodynamic or electrical instability (level of evidence: B) or an elevated risk for clinical events as outlined in Table 1 (level of evidence: A). A conservative (e.g. selectively invasive) strategy may be considered in initially stabilised patients (without serious comorbidities or contraindications to such procedures) who have an elevated risk for clinical events (as outlined in Table 1), including those who are troponin-positive, although this is a very weak recommendation (class IIb recommendation; level of evidence: B) (1).
The recommendations for this predominantly invasive approach are primarily based on three large randomised trials: the Fragmin and Fast Revascularisation during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC)-II trial (9), the Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 18 (TACTICS–TIMI-18) trial (10) and the third Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA 3) trial (11). These studies showed that an early invasive strategy was beneficial for preventing ischaemic outcomes, especially in subgroups of patients at high risk, such as those presenting with an elevated cardiac troponin level. For example, one study showed that the odds ratio (OR) for death, non-fatal MI or re-hospitalisation was 0.44 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30–0.66] at 30 days and 0.55 (95% CI 0.40–0.75) at 6 months in patients with elevated troponin levels (10). These findings were confirmed in a meta-analysis of trials comparing a routine invasive strategy with a more conservative strategy in patients with NSTEMI. This meta-analysis showed that routine invasive strategies were more effective in preventing MI (7.3% vs. 9.4%, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.88), severe angina (11.2% vs. 14.0%, OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68–0.87) and re-hospitalisation (32.5% vs. 41.3%, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.60–0.72) when compared with a conservative strategy (12).
Historically, an ischaemia-guided approach was adopted in patients presenting with suspected cases of UA/MI. In this strategy, patients only receive diagnostic cardiac catheterisation and revascularisation if myocardial ischaemia has been objectively diagnosed, such as through recurrent symptoms or provocative stress testing. However, as early trial data increasingly supported better outcomes with an ‘early invasive’ strategy (9–11), there has been a decline in ischaemia-guided medical management. Accordingly, patients presenting with elevated risk for adverse outcomes from ACS are now routinely referred for early coronary angiography and increasingly undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
However, not all studies support an early invasive strategy for all patients. For example, the Invasive vs. Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes (ICTUS) trial compared an early invasive to a selectively invasive strategy using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), GP IIb/IIIa inhibition (clopidogrel) and intensive lipid-lowering therapy in high-risk UA/NSTEMI patients (with elevated cardiac troponin T levels) (13). The selectively invasive strategy was associated with similar outcomes compared with early invasive strategy, across a spectrum of high-risk patients (Figure 2) (13). These outcomes were consistently observed in both the short- (13) and long-term (14). It should be noted that the medical management in ICTUS was very aggressive and that a high percentage of patients in the ‘conservative’ arm underwent early revascularisation.
Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence from the FRISC-II and RITA 3 trials regarding the long-term benefits of an early invasive strategy (15–17). The FRISC-II trial found that early invasive management was associated with a significant reduction in mortality at 2 years [3.7% vs. 5.4%, relative risk (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.47–0.98, p = 0.04] (15), but that this benefit was not sustained at 5 years (9.7% vs. 10.1%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75–1.21, p = 0.69) (16). In the RITA 3 study, the survival curves started to diverge in favour of the early invasive strategy only after 2 years, resulting in a mortality of 12.1% with the early invasive strategy and 15.1% with the conservative strategy at 5 years (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58–1.00, p = 0.054) (17).
Further consideration needs to be given to the patient groups for whom the intensive nature of an invasive upstream treatment strategy may not be appropriate, e.g. in women with low-risk features, the extremely elderly, patients presenting with severe renal dysfunction and those patients who have previously undergone coronary bypass surgery or PCI (1).
Studies have shown that event rates increase significantly with each additional risk factor (p < 0.001 for trend) (8) and that the greatest clinical benefits are seen when patients are managed according to their individual risk (8,10,18). Patients who receive the most benefit from the early invasive approach appear to be those with elevated troponin levels and/or TIMI risk scores of ≥ 4. Collectively, these data suggest that efforts should focus on providing invasive strategies to patients who would benefit most from these interventions and therefore, risk stratification of patients with UA/NSTEMI is very important before deciding on a future management approach.
According to the ACC/AHA guidelines (1), antiplatelet therapy in addition to aspirin should be initiated before diagnostic angiography (upstream), with either clopidogrel (loading dose followed by daily maintenance dose) or an intravenous (i.v.) GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (class I recommendation; level of evidence: A) (1). Clopidogrel can also be used in conjunction with i.v. GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (class IIa recommendation; level of evidence: B). Factors favouring administration of both agents include: delay to angiography, high-risk features such as elevated troponin and early recurrent ischaemic discomfort. These two recommendations imply that the treatment approach may vary according to the patient’s characteristics.
There is good evidence that treatment with clopidogrel prior to PCI prevents postprocedural ischaemic complications (19,20). The First Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (ISAR-REACT) trial investigated the use of a 600 mg loading dose of clopidogrel with or without GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in low-risk patients undergoing PCI (21). Clopidogrel alone was well tolerated and associated with a low frequency of early complications, but there was no additional clinically measurable benefit at 30 days with the administration of the GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, abciximab, in this low-risk cohort (21).
Other studies have shown that the most benefit from GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors is observed in patients at intermediate-to-high risk requiring PCI (22–27). For example, among high-risk patients with an elevated troponin level, the ISAR-REACT 2 study found that the incidence of events was significantly lower with concurrently administered clopidogrel and abciximab (67/513 patients; 13.1%) than clopidogrel and placebo (98/536 patients; 18.3%). This corresponded to an RR of 0.71 (95% CI 0.54–0.95, p = 0.02) (p = 0.07 for the interaction) (28). These results support the utilisation of clopidogrel and GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in high-risk NSTEMI ACS patients, especially those with elevated troponin levels.
However, the benefits of these treatments in certain subgroups of patients, such as the elderly and patients with renal impairment, are less certain. For instance, reports on the efficacy of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the elderly show apparently contradictory results (29–31). One study reported a reduction in major ischaemic events associated with GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in elderly patients (10% vs. 5.9%, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.30–0.83) (29), whereas the other showed no significant differences (9.9% vs. 10.9%, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72–1.69, p = 0.65) (30). Furthermore, the suitability of using concomitant GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and clopidogrel in these potentially high-risk patient subgroups is yet to be established.
In summary, the findings from these trials reinforce the need for careful evaluation of risks, clinical features and patient characteristics most associated with benefits when selecting therapeutic regimens (32). Risk stratification should enable physicians to select which patients should receive clopidogrel alone or clopidogrel in combination with GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors.
Clopidogrel is recommended by the ACC/AHA guidelines either during an invasive or conservative approach (class IA recommendation; level of evidence: A) (1). In the PCI Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events (CURE) study, the frequency of death or MI in the 30 days after PCI was significantly lower among patients who had been pretreated with clopidogrel for a median of 10 days compared with those patients who received no pretreatment (4.4% vs. 2.8%, relative risk reduction 34%, p < 0.04) (33). There was no significant increase in major or minor bleeding associated with clopidogrel pretreatment in patients who underwent a percutaneous revascularisation (33). On the basis of this study, it seems that early treatment with clopidogrel reduces early ischaemic events.
However, the use of clopidogrel may not be appropriate for all patients. Between 12% and 27% of patients requiring coronary revascularisation undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as their primary mode of therapy (9,10,34,35). Some studies suggest that the use of clopidogrel pretreatment may increase the risk of 30-day any major bleeding when compared with no pretreatment (2.0% vs. 1.5%, RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.01–1.70) (36). As bleeding represents a serious complication for CABG, early risk stratification is key to the identification of those who may need urgent CABG and who should not receive clopidogrel. This risk-stratification strategy will minimise the bleeding risk for those proceeding to CABG, while ensuring that patients undergoing PCI benefit from clopidogrel treatment (37).
The key studies of antithrombin therapy in NSTEMI patients are summarised in Table 2 (4,38–48). The ACC/AHA guidelines recommend the use of enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) as antithrombin therapy in the invasive pathway (class IA recommendation; level of evidence: A) (1). The ACC/AHA guidelines also recommend fondaparinux during an invasive approach (class IB recommendation; level of evidence: B). The current evidence indicates that fondaparinux and UFH have comparable clinical safety in patients undergoing PCI in both NSTEMI (12,48) and STEMI (47) patients. However, there was a higher rate of guiding catheter thrombosis with fondaparinux in the OASIS-5 trial (3). After the OASIS-5 protocol was amended to include administration of i.v. UFH to patients undergoing PCI, the rate of this complication was lower (3). However, the exact dose of UFH needed to prevent catheter-thrombosis formation during the use of fondaparinux in patients undergoing PCI remains undefined. This confusion regarding heparin dosing in the catheterisation laboratory in patients already on fondaparinux has led to slow acceptance of fondaparinux in high-risk patients.
On the basis of findings from OASIS-5 in NSTEMI patients, the guidelines also recommend upstream therapy with fondaparinux in patients managed conservatively with a high risk of bleeding (class IB recommendation; level of evidence: B). This recommendation for the broader application of fondaparinux in patients at high risk of bleeding was made despite the lack of direct evidence for an association between patient characteristics and bleeding rates from the OASIS-5 trial (3).
Hence, although the study data on fondaparinux are generally robust, there are various details missing from the published literature with fondaparinux and further information is required to help guide the ‘interventionalists’ in this situation. The manufacturers of fondaparinux have applied for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for an indication for use in ACS.
Bivalirudin is indicated as an antithrombin therapy in patients undergoing an invasive strategy (class IB recommendation; level of evidence: B). The use of upstream bivalirudin is also indicated as an alternative to GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (class IIa recommendation; level of evidence: B) (1), but only with the concomitant use of clopidogrel. However, there are limited data on upstream use of bivalirudin. The use of bivalirudin monotherapy, bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors was investigated in the ACUITY trial (Table 2) (4). The 30-day rates of composite ischaemic end-point of death, MI, or unplanned revascularisation for ischaemia were 7.7%, 7.3% and 7.8% for bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and bivalirudin monotherapy respectively. The RR (95% CI) for the comparison between heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors vs. bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors was 1.01 (0.90–1.12) and for the comparison between heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and bivalirudin alone, 1.08 (0.93–1.24). The rates of major bleeding for the same groups were 5.3%, 5.7% and 3.0% respectively and the RRs (95% CIs) were 0.93 (0.78–1.10) and 0.53 (0.43–0.65) respectively (4). These data suggest that bivalirudin alone could be used to achieve similar efficacy and a reduction in major bleeding. However, the utilisation of bivalirudin upstream in the ACUITY trial was relatively short, with a median infusion duration of < 6 h. In addition, the majority of patients in ACUITY had been pretreated with heparin or enoxaparin prior to randomisation. As such, it is unclear how effective bivalirudin alone is in prolonged upstream precatheterisation medical management.
In addition, other treatment options should not be excluded for high-risk patients. In particular, the use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors should be considered for those with positive troponin and for those not pretreated with thienopyridine. Bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with positive troponin and for those not pretreated with thienopyridine was associated with an increased RR for ischaemic events, 1.12 (95% CI 0.94–1.34) and 1.29 (95% CI 1.03–1.63) respectively (4,49). Currently, bivalirudin remains an unapproved and expensive treatment option outside the catheterisation laboratory, with limited data on upstream effectiveness.
The ACC/AHA guideline recommended therapies for patients with UA/NSTEMI are best utilised in a risk-matched strategy, which couples high-intensity treatment with high-risk patients and lower-intensity treatment with lower-risk patients. Matching treatment to risk is easily accomplished by utilising the invasive pathway for the highest-risk patients and the conservative pathway for lower-risk patients and starting this differentiation as early as the emergency department.
Thus, as mentioned above, patients with ECG ST deviation or elevated troponins or a TIMI score > 3 should be treated upstream as per the invasive pathway (Figure 3) (50). Invasive pathway medications include anti-ischaemics [oxygen, nitrates, beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors], aspirin, either clopidogrel or a GP inhibitor and an antithrombin (UFH or enoxaparin). An alternative to heparins plus a GP inhibitor is bivalirudin administered upstream with concomitant clopidogrel. In higher-risk patients, with elevated troponin, recurrent ischaemia on therapy or delay to catheterisation, triple antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel and a GP inhibitor is an alternative strategy.
In lower-risk patients, with non-diagnostic ECGs, normal troponins and TIMI scores of 2–3, the conservative or selectively invasive strategy is preferable (Figure 3) (50). Other patients who would fit in this strategy are high-risk patients who are not eligible for catheterisation for reasons of lack of capabilities, patient preference and physician preference. Conservative pathway treatments include anti-ischaemic therapy, aspirin, clopidogrel and an antithrombin or factor Xa inhibitor such as fondaparinux. LMWHs such as enoxaparin are preferable to UFH in these medically-managed patients. Patients in the conservative pathway are admitted to the hospital for serial ECGs, serial troponins and provocative testing. Catheterisation is reserved for those patients who develop recurrent chest pain, ECG changes, elevated troponins, high-risk provocative testing results or a left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%. If these complications develop, then the patient is transferred to the invasive pathway and cardiac catheterisation is performed.
Although the ACC/AHA guidelines are a comprehensive tool for the management of patients with NSTEMI, additional factors need to be taken into consideration to aid the decision-making process. Rapid and accurate risk stratification is essential to determine whether to use an early or selectively invasive strategy. Consideration of the risk of complications during subsequent procedures, e.g. catheter thrombosis during PCI with fondaparinux and bleeding with clopidogrel during CABG, are also important determinants for the choice of treatment. Finally, upstream medical management should be matched with catheter-based therapies to ensure seamless transitions from the precatheterisation medical management phase of therapy to the catheterisation laboratory. Although the new ACC/AHA guidelines provide many options for both precatheterisation medical management as well as catheter-based therapy, they do not provide the guidance needed to facilitate transition of care in a way that matches treatment to risk. Protocol development within an institution is required to risk-stratify patients rapidly, provide optimum precatheterisation medical management and allow seamless and rapid transitions to the catheterisation laboratory in patients at risk for adverse events.
Funding sources: the authors received editorial support in the preparation of this manuscript, funded by sanofi-aventis, NJ, USA. The authors are fully responsible for content and editorial decisions for this manuscript.
The authors were responsible for the topic selection, content and organisation of the manuscript, critical revisions and final approval. The authors were not influenced at all by the third party sponsors with regard to content or organisation. Editorial assistance was provided in the preparation of the manuscript and the tables/figures.
|1.||Anderson JL,Adams CD,Antman EM,et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing committee to revise the 2002 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency MedicineJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 200750e115717692738|
|2.||Braunwald E,Antman EM,Beasley JW,et al. ACC/AHA guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-2002: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina)CirculationYear: 2002106189390012356647|
|3.||Mehta SR,Granger CB,Eikelboom JW,et al. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the OASIS-5 trialJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 20075017425117964037|
|4.||Stone GW,McLaurin BT,Cox DA,et al. ACUITY investigatorsBivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromesN Engl J MedYear: 200635522031617124018|
|5.||Eagle KA,Lim MJ,Dabbous OH,et al. GRACE InvestigatorsA validated prediction model for all forms of acute coronary syndrome: estimating the risk of 6-month postdischarge death in an international registryJAMAYear: 200429127273315187054|
|6.||Granger CB,Goldberg RJ,Dabbous O,et al. Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events InvestigatorsPredictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary eventsArch Intern MedYear: 200316323455314581255|
|7.||Boersma E,Pieper KS,Steyerberg EW,et al. The PURSUIT InvestigatorsPredictors of outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation. Results from an international trial of 9461 patientsCirculationYear: 200010125576710840005|
|8.||Antman EM,Cohen M,Bernink PJ,et al. The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision makingJAMAYear: 20002848354210938172|
|9.||FRagmin and Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease InvestigatorsInvasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre studyLancetYear: 19993547081510475181|
|10.||Cannon CP,Weintraub WS,Demopoulos LA,et al. TACTICS (Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy)-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 18 InvestigatorsComparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofibanN Engl J MedYear: 200134418798711419424|
|11.||Fox KA,Poole-Wilson PA,Henderson RA,et al. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina InvestigatorsInterventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trialLancetYear: 20023607435112241831|
|12.||Mehta SR,Cannon CP,Fox KA,et al. Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trialsJAMAYear: 200529329081715956636|
|13.||de Winter RJ,Windhausen F,Cornel JH,et al. Invasive versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes (ICTUS) InvestigatorsEarly invasive versus selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromesN Engl J MedYear: 2005353109510416162880|
|14.||Hirsch A,Windhausen F,Tijssen JG,et al. Invasive versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable coronary Syndromes (ICTUS) investigatorsLong-term outcome after an early invasive versus selective invasive treatment strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome and elevated cardiac troponin T (the ICTUS trial): a follow-up studyLancetYear: 20073698273517350451|
|15.||Lagerqvist B,Husted S,Kontny F,Fast Revascularization during InStability in Coronary artery disease-II InvestigatorsA long-term perspective on the protective effects of an early invasive strategy in unstable coronary artery disease: two-year follow-up of the FRISC-II invasive studyJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 20024019021412475448|
|16.||Lagerqvist B,Husted S,Kontny F,et al. Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease (FRISC-II) Investigators5-year outcomes in the FRISC-II randomised trial of an invasive versus a non-invasive strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a follow-up studyLancetYear: 2006368998100416980115|
|17.||Fox KA,Poole-Wilson P,Clayton TC,et al. 5-year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trialLancetYear: 20053669142016154018|
|18.||Morrow DA,Antman EM,Snapinn SM,et al. An integrated clinical approach to predicting the benefit of tirofiban in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Application of the TIMI Risk Score for UA/NSTEMI in PRISM-PLUSEur Heart JYear: 200223223911792137|
|19.||Mehta SR,Yusuf S,Peters RJ,et al. Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events trial (CURE) InvestigatorsEffects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE studyLancetYear: 20013585273311520521|
|20.||Steinhubl SR,Berger PB,Mann JT III,et al. CREDO InvestigatorsEarly and sustained dual oral antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trialJAMAYear: 200228824112012435254|
|21.||Kastrati A,Mehilli J,Schühlen H,et al. Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment Study InvestigatorsA clinical trial of abciximab in elective percutaneous coronary intervention after pretreatment with clopidogrelN Engl J MedYear: 2004350232814724302|
|22.||The EPIC InvestigatorsUse of a monoclonal antibody directed against the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor in high-risk coronary angioplastyN Engl J MedYear: 1994330956618121459|
|23.||Platelet Receptor Inhibition in Ischemic Syndrome Management in Patients Limited by Unstable Signs and Symptoms (PRISM-PLUS) Study InvestigatorsInhibition of the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor with tirofiban in unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarctionN Engl J MedYear: 19983381488979599103|
|24.||The PURSUIT Trial InvestigatorsInhibition of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa with eptifibatide in patients with acute coronary syndromesN Engl J MedYear: 1998339436439705684|
|25.||ESPRIT InvestigatorsNovel dosing regimen of eptifibatide in planned coronary stent implantation (ESPRIT): a randomised, placebo-controlled trialLancetYear: 200035620374411145489|
|26.||Steinhubl SR,Ellis SG,Wolski K,et al. Ticlopidine pretreatment before coronary stenting is associated with sustained decrease in adverse cardiac events: data from the Evaluation of Platelet IIb/IIIa Inhibitor for Stenting (EPISTENT) TrialCirculationYear: 20011031403911245644|
|27.||Topol EJ,Lincoff AM,Kereiakes DJ,et al. Multi-year follow-up of abciximab therapy in three randomized, placebo-controlled trials of percutaneous coronary revascularizationAm J MedYear: 20021131612106616|
|28.||Kastrati A,Mehilli J,Neumann FJ,et al. Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic: Regimen Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 2 (ISAR-REACT 2) Trial InvestigatorsAbciximab in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after clopidogrel pretreatment: the ISAR-REACT 2 randomized trialJAMAYear: 20062951531816533938|
|29.||Mak KH,Effron MB,Moliterno DJ. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists and their use in elderly patientsDrugs AgingYear: 2000161798710803858|
|30.||Ndrepepa G,Kastrati A,Mehilli J,et al. Age-dependent effect of abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with percutaneous coronary interventionCirculationYear: 20061142040617060377|
|31.||Montalescot G. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the elderly: fear of age or age of fear?CirculationYear: 20061142004617088473|
|32.||Silva MA,Donovan JL,Gandhi PJ,et al. Platelet inhibitors in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention: glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, clopidogrel, or both?Vasc Health Risk ManagYear: 20062394817319468|
|33.||Berger PB,Steinhubl S. Clinical implications of percutaneous coronary intervention-clopidogrel in unstable angina to prevent recurrent events (PCI-CURE) study: a US perspectiveCirculationYear: 20021062284712390961|
|34.||Mahaffey KW,Cohen M,Garg J,et al. SYNERGY Trial InvestigatorsHigh-risk patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin: outcomes at 6 months and 1 year in the SYNERGY trialJAMAYear: 2005294259460016304073|
|35.||Meine TJ,Roe MT,Chen AY,et al. CRUSADE InvestigatorsAssociation of intravenous morphine use and outcomes in acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement InitiativeAm Heart JYear: 20051491043915976786|
|36.||Yusuf S,Mehta SR,Zhao F,et al. Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events Trial InvestigatorsEarly and late effects of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromesCirculationYear: 20031079667212600908|
|37.||Cannon CP. What is the optimal timing of clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes?Crit Pathw CardiolYear: 20054465018340185|
|38.||Fragmin during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC) Study GroupLow-molecular-weight heparin during instability in coronary artery diseaseLancetYear: 199634756188596317|
|39.||Cohen M,Demers C,Gurfinkel EP,et al. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events Study GroupN Engl J MedYear: 1997337447529250846|
|40.||Klein W,Buchwald A,Hillis SE,et al. Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin acutely and with placebo for 6 weeks in the management of unstable coronary artery disease. Fragmin in unstable coronary artery disease study (FRIC)CirculationYear: 1997966189236418|
|41.||The F.R.A.X.I.S. Study GroupComparison of two treatment durations (6 days and 14 days) of a low molecular weight heparin with a 6-day treatment of unfractionated heparin in the initial management of unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction: FRAX.I.S. (FRAxiparine in Ischaemic Syndrome)Eur Heart JYear: 19992015536210529323|
|42.||Antman EM,McCabe CH,Gurfinkel EP,et al. Enoxaparin prevents death and cardiac ischemic events in unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: results of the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 11B trialCirculationYear: 1999100159360110517729|
|43.||Cohen M,Theroux P,Borzak S,et al. Randomized double-blind safety study of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes treated with tirofiban and aspirin: the ACUTE II study. The antithrombotic combination using tirofiban and enoxaparinAm Heart JYear: 2002144470712228784|
|44.||Goodman SG,Fitchett D,Armstrong PW,et al. Randomized evaluation of the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes receiving the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor eptifibatideCirculationYear: 20031072384412538422|
|45.||Blazing MA,de Lemos JA,White HD,et al. Safety and efficacy of enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in patients with non-STsegment elevation acute coronary syndromes who receive tirofiban and aspirin: a randomized controlled trialJAMAYear: 2004292556415238591|
|46.||Ferguson JJ,Califf RM,Antman EM,et al. Enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an intended early invasive strategy: primary results of the SYNERGY randomized trialJAMAYear: 2004292455415238590|
|47.||Mehta SR,Steg PG,Granger CB,et al. ASPIRE InvestigatorsRandomized, blinded trial comparing fondaparinux with unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: Arixtra Study in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a Randomized Evaluation (ASPIRE) Pilot TrialCirculationYear: 20051111390715781750|
|48.||Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes InvestigatorsYusuf S,Mehta SR,Chrolavicius S,et al. Comparison of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromesN Engl J MedYear: 200635414647616537663|
|49.||Waksman R. ACUITY-PCI: one drug does not fit allLancetYear: 2007369881217368130|
|50.||Cohen M,Diez J,Fry E,et al. Strategies for optimizing outcomes in the NSTE-ACS patient The CATH (cardiac catheterization and antithrombotic therapy in the hospital) Clinical Consensus Panel ReportJ Invasive CardiolYear: 2006186173917197714|
[Figure ID: fig01]
Risk-stratification flow diagram for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, from the Wake Forest University Health Science, Department of Emergency Medicine
[Figure ID: fig02]
Comparison of primary outcome (composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or re-hospitalisation for anginal symptoms within 1 year) with an early invasive vs. a selectively invasive strategy in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (reproduced with permission from de Winter, et al.; Invasive vs. Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes (ICTUS) Investigators. Early invasive vs. selectively invasive management for acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1095–1104) (13). © 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved
[Figure ID: fig03]
Risk-stratification treatment strategy for the management of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (used with permission from Cohen, et al. Strategies for optimizing outcomes in the NSTE-ACS patient The CATH (cardiac catheterization and antithrombotic therapy in the hospital) Clinical Consensus Panel Report. J Invasive Cardiol 2006; 18: 617–39) (50)
Selection of initial treatment strategy: invasive vs. conservative strategy
|Preferred strategy||Patient characteristics|
|Invasive||Recurrent angina or ischaemia at rest or with low-level activities despite intensive medical therapy|
|Elevated cardiac biomarkers (troponin I or T)|
|New or presumably new ST-segment depression|
|Signs or symptoms of heart failure or new or worsening mitral regurgitation|
|High-risk findings from non-invasive testing|
|Sustained ventricular tachycardia|
|PCI within 6 months|
|High-risk score (e.g. TIMI, GRACE)|
|Reduced left-ventricular function (LVEF < 40%)|
|Conservative||Low-risk score (e.g. TIMI, GRACE)|
|Patient or physician preference in the absence of high-risk features|
CABG, coronary artery bypass graft surgery; GRACE, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events; LVEF, left-ventricular ejection fraction; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; TIMI, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction.
|Clinical trial (reference)||Patients, n||Test drug||Comparator drug||End-point†||End-point incidence and analyses||Major bleeding|
|ACUITY (4)||13,819||Bivalirudin i.v. 0.1 mg/kg bolus then infusion of 0.25 mg/kg/h. i.v. 0.5 mg/kg bolus before PCI, then infusion increased to 1.75 mg/kg/h||GP IIb/IIIa antagonists: eptifibatide i.v. 180 μg/kg bolus plus 2.0 μg/kg/min infusion) or tirofiban: 0.4 μg/kg/min infusion for 30 min followed by 0.1 μg/kg/min infusion or abciximab: 0.25 mg/kg bolus plus 0.125 μg/kg/min infusion, max 10 μg/min plus either UFH 60 U/kg i.v. bolus followed by i.v. infusion of 12 U/kg/h adjusted for aPTT, or enoxaparin 1 mg/kg SC every 12 h||Death, MI or urgentrevascularisation at 30 days||Bivalirudin 7.8% vs. heparin 7.3%; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24; p = 0.32||Bivalirudin 3% vs. heparin 5.7%; RR 0.53; p < 0.001|
|As above plus GP IIb/IIIa antagonists: eptifibatide i.v. 180 μg/kg bolus plus 2.0 μg/kg/min infusion) or tirofiban: 0.4 μg/kg/min infusion for 30 min followed by 0.1 μg/kg/min infusion or abciximab: 0.25 mg/kg bolus plus 0.125 μg/kg/min infusion, maximum 10 μg/min||Heparin 7.3% vs. bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa antagonists 7.7%; RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.23; p = 0.39||Heparin 5.7% vs. bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa antagonists 5.3% RR 0.93; p < 0.001|
|FRISC (38)||1506||Dalteparin 120 IU/kg* SC bid (maximum 10,000 IU) for 6 days||Placebo||Death or new MI at day 6||Dalteparin 1.8% vs. placebo 4.8%; RR 0.37; ARR 3%; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.68; p = 0.001||Dalteparin 0.8% vs. placebo 0.5%; ARR 0.3%|
|As above then dalteparin 7500 IU SC once daily for 35–45 days||Death or new MI at day 40||Dalteparin 8% vs. placebo 10.7%; RR 0.75; ARR 2.7%; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.03; p = 0.07||Dalteparin 0.3% vs. placebo 0.3%; ARR 0%|
|ESSENCE (39)||3171||Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg SC bid minimum 48 h, maximum 8 days||UFH i.v. bolus (5000 U) and continued i.v. infusion||Death, MI, or recurrent angina at 14 days||Enoxaparin 16.6% vs. UFH 19.8%; OR 0.80; ARR 3.2%; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; p = 0.019|
|Death, MI, or recurrent angina at 30 days||Enoxaparin 19.8% vs. UFH 23.3%; OR 0.81; ARR 3.5%; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.96; p = 0.016||Enoxaparin 6.5% vs. UFH 7%; ARR 0.5%; p = 0.57|
|FRIC (40)||1482||Dalteparin 120 IU/kg SC bid for 6 days||UFH 5000 U i.v. bolus and i.v. infusion of 1000 U/h for 48 h||Death, MI, or recurrence of angina||Dalteparin 9.3% vs. UFH 7.6%; RR 1.18; ARR −1.7%; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.66; p = 0.33||Dalteparin 1.1% vs. UFH 1.0%; ARR −0.1%|
|Death or MI||Dalteparin 3.9% vs. UFH 3.6%; RR 1.07; ARR −0.3%; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.80; p = 0.80|
|Dalteparin 7500 IU SC once per day between days 6 and 45||Placebo SC once daily||Death, MI, or recurrence of angina||Dalteparin 12.3% vs. UFH 12.3%; RR 1.01; ARR 0%; 95% CI 0.74 to1.38; p = 0.96||Dalteparin 0.5% vs. placebo 0.4%; ARR −0.1%|
|Death or MI||Dalteparin 4.3% vs. placebo 4.7%; RR 0.92; ARR 0.4%; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; p = 0.76|
|FRAXIS (41)||3468||Nadroparin 86 anti-Xa IU/kg i.v. bolus, followed by nadroparin 86 anti-Xa IU/kg SC bid for 6 days (plus or minus 2 days)||UFH 5000 U i.v. bolus and UFH infusion at 1250 U/h i.v. for 6 days (plus or minus 2 days)||Cardiac death, MI, refractory angina, recurrence of UA at day 14||Nadroparin 17.8% vs. UFH 18.1%; ARR 0.3%; 95% CI −2.8 to 3.4; p = 0.85||Nadroparin 1.5% vs. UFH 1.6%; ARR 0.1%|
|Nadroparin 86 anti-Xa IU/kg i.v. bolus, followed by nadroparin 86 anti-Xa IU/kg SC bid for 14 days||Nadroparin 20.0% vs. UFH 18.1%; ARR −1.9%; 95% CI −5.1 to 1.3; p = 0.24||Nadroparin 3.5% vs. UFH 1.6%; ARR −1.9%; p = 0.0035|
|TIMI 11B (42)||3910||Inpatient: enoxaparin 30 mg i.v. bolus immediately followed by 1 mg/kg SC every 12 h||UFH 70 U/kg bolus and infusion at 15 U/h titrated to aPTT (treatment maintained for a minimum of 3 and maximum of 8 days at physician’s discretion)||Death, MI, urgent revascularisation at 48 h||Enoxaparin 5.5% vs. UFH 7.3%; OR 0.75; ARR 1.8%; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.97; p = 0.026||Enoxaparin 0.8% vs. UFH 0.7%; ARR −0.1%; p = 0.14|
|Death, MI, urgent revascularisation at 8 days||Enoxaparin 12.4% vs. UFH 14.5%; OR 0.83; ARR 2.1%; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00; p = 0.048||End of initial hospitalisation: enoxaparin 1.5% vs. UFH 1%; ARR −0.5%; p = 0.143|
|Outpatient: enoxaparin 40 mg SC bid (patients weighing < 65 kg) or 60 mg SC bid patients weighing at least 65 kg)||Placebo SC bid||Death, MI, urgent revascularisation at14 days||Enoxaparin 14.2% vs. UFH 16.7%; OR 0.82; ARR 2.5%; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; p = 0.029|
|Death, MI, urgent revascularisation at 43 days||Enoxaparin 17.3% vs. UFH 19.7%; OR 0.85; ARR 2.4%; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00; p = 0.048||Between days 8 and 43: enoxaparin 2.9% vs. placebo 2.9%; ARR 0%; p = 0.021|
|ACUTE II (43)||525†||Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg SC every 12 h||UFH 5000 U i.v. bolus and maintenance infusion at 1000 U/h i.v. adjusted to aPTT||Death at 30 days||Enoxaparin 2.5% vs. UFH 1.9%, RR −1.3; ARR −0.6%; 95% CI 0.06 to 3.93; p = 0.77||Enoxaparin 0.3% vs. UFH 1%; ARR 0.7%; p = 0.57|
|INTERACT (44)||746‡||Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg SC every 12 h||UFH 70 U/kg i.v. bolus followed by continuous infusion at 15 U/kg/h||Death or MI at 30 days||Enoxaparin 5.0% vs. UFH 9.0%; RR 0.55; ARR 4%, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; p = 0.031||At 96 h: enoxaparin 1.8% vs. UFH 4.6%; ARR 2.8%; p = 0.03|
|A to Z (45)||3987§||Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg SC every 12 h||Patients ≥ 70 kg: UFH 4000 U i.v. bolus followed by 900 U/h i.v. infusion; Patients ≤ 70 kg UFH 60 U/kg (maximum 4000 U) i.v. bolus followed by 12 U/kg/h i.v. infusion||All-cause death, MI, or refractory ischaemia within 7 days of tirofiban initiation||Enoxaparin 8.4% vs. UFH 9.4%; HR 0.88; ARR 1%; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.08||Enoxaparin 0.9% vs. UFH 0.4%; ARR −0.5%; p = 0.05|
|SYNERGY¶ (46)||9978||Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg SC every 12 h||UFH 60 U/kg i.v. bolus (maximum of 5000 U) and followed by i.v. infusion of 12 U/kg/h (maximum of 1000 U/h initially||Death or non-fatal MI during first 30 days||Enoxaparin 14.0% vs. UFH 14.5%; HR 0.96; ARR 0.5%; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; p = 0.40||Enoxaparin 9.1% vs. UFH 7.6%; ARR −1.5%; p = 0.008|
|ASPIRE (47)||350||Fondaparinux i.v. 2.5 mg||UFH (100 U/kg without GP IIb/IIIa antagonist, or 65 U/kg with GP IIb/IIIa antagonist as per local practice)||Death, MI, urgent revascularisation, or bailout use of GP IIb/IIIa antagonist||Fondaparinux 4.2% vs. UFH 6.0%||Fondaparinux 0.8% vs. UFH 0.0%|
|Fondaparinux i.v. 5.0 mg||Fondaparinux 7.8% vs. UFH 6.0%||Fondaparinux 2.6% vs. UFH 0.0%|
|Either 2.5 or 5.0 mg fondaparinux i.v.||Fondaparinux 6.0% vs. UFH 6.0%; HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.52; p = 0.97||Total bleeding: fondaparinux 6.4% vs. UFH 7.7%; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.84; p = 0.61|
|OASIS-5(Yusuf(et al.,2006) (48)||20,078||Fondaparinux 2.5 mg/kg SC once daily||Enoxaparin 1 mg/kg SC every 12 h||Death, MI, or refractory ischaemia 9 days||Fondaparinux 5.8% vs. enoxaparin 5.7%; HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13; p = 0.007||Fondaparinux 2.2% vs. enoxaparin 4.1%; p < 0.001|
|Death, MI, or refractory ischaemia 30 days||Fondaparinux 8.0% vs. enoxaparin 8.6%; HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02; p = 0.13|
|Death, MI, or refractory ischaemia 180 days||Fondaparinux 12.3% vs. enoxaparin 13.2%; HR 0.93; 95% CI 00.86 to 1.00; p = 0.06|
End-point timings same as end of treatment period unless stated otherwise. Partially based on data from ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (1). For specific interventions and additional medications during the study, see individual study references. Major bleeding was classified as follows in the various trials: ACUITY: major bleeding was defined as the cumulative occurrence within 25 to 35 days after randomisation of intracranial or intra-ocular bleeding, haemorrhage at the access site requiring intervention, haematoma with a diameter of at least 5 cm, a reduction in haemoglobin levels of at least 4 g/dl without an overt bleeding source or at least 3 g/dl with such a source, reoperation for bleeding, or transfusion of a blood product. FRISC: major bleeding was defined as a fall in haemoglobin of more than 20 g/l (2 g/dl) associated with corresponding signs or symptoms, intracranial bleeding, or bleeding leading to transfusion, interruption of treatment, or death. ESSENCE: major haemorrhage was defined as bleeding resulting in death, transfusion of at least 2 U of blood, a fall in haemoglobin of 30 g/l or more, or a retroperitoneal, intracranial, or intra-ocular haemorrhage. FRIC: a bleeding event was classified as major if it led to a fall in the haemoglobin level of at least 20 g/l, required transfusion, was intracranial, or caused death or cessation of the study treatment. FRAXIS: haemorrhage was considered as major if it met any of the following criteria: symptomatic bleeding associated with a decrease in haemoglobin > 2 g/dl; retroperitoneal or intracranial haemorrhage; haemorrhage requiring transfusion or haemorrhagic death. TIMI 11B: overt bleed resulting in death; a bleed in a retroperitoneal, intracranial, or intra-ocular location; a haemoglobin drop of greater than or equal to 3 g/l; or the requirement of transfusion of at least 2 U of blood. SYNERGY: TIMI and GUSTO criteria. ACUTE II: severity was recorded on the basis of the TIMI trial bleeding criteria. TIMI major bleeding involved a haemoglobin drop greater than 5 g/dl (with or without an identified site, not associated with coronary artery bypass grafting) or intracranial haemorrhage or cardiac tamponade. INTERACT: major bleeding included bleeding resulting in death, or retroperitoneal haemorrhage, or bleeding at a specific site accompanied by a drop in haemoglobin greater than or equal to 3 g/dl. A to Z: decrease in haemoglobin of more than 5 mg/dl or intracranial or pericardial bleeding. SYNERGY: TIMI and GUSTO definitions. ASPIRE: major bleeding was defined as clinically overt bleeding with one of the following criteria: fatal, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, retroperitoneal haemorrhage, intra-ocular haemorrhage, or a fall in haemoglobin of 3.0 g/dl, with each blood transfusion unit counting for 1.0 g/dl of haemoglobin, or transfusion of ≥ 2 U of blood. OASIS-5: major bleeding is defined as clinically overt bleeding that is either fatal, symptomatic intracranial, retroperitoneal, intra-ocular, a decrease in haemoglobin of at least 3.0 g/dl (with each blood transfusion unit counting for 1.0 g/dl of haemoglobin), or requiring transfusion of ≥ 2 U of red blood cells. *Initial trial dose of 150 IU/kg SC bid decreased to 120 IU/kg SC bid due to increased bleeding during first 6 days (four patients or 6% major bleeding episodes and nine patients or 14% minor episodes among 63 actively treated patients). †All patients in ACUTE II received a tirofiban loading dose of 0.4 μg/kg/min over 30 min, followed by a maintenance infusion at 0.1 μg/kg/min. ‡All patients in INTERACT received eptifibatide 180 μg/kg bolus followed by a 2.0 μg/kg/min infusion for 48 h. §All patients enrolled in the A to Z Trial received aspirin and tirofiban. ¶Patients also received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, aspirin, clopidogrel; patients eligible for enrolment even if LMWH or UFH given before enrolment, adjustments made to enoxaparin and UFH during percutaneous coronary intervention. A to Z, Aggrastat to Zocor study; ACUITY, Acute Catheterisation and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY trial; ACUTE II, antithrombotic combination using tirofiban and enoxaparin; aPTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; ARR, absolute risk reduction; ASPIRE, Arixtra Study in Percutaneous coronary Intervention: a Randomised Evaluation; bid, twice daily; CI, confidence interval; ESSENCE, efficacy and safety of subcutaneous enoxaparin in unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction; FRAXIS, fraxiparine in ischaemic syndrome; FRIC, fragmin in unstable coronary disease; FRISC, fragmin during instability in coronary artery disease; HR, hazard ratio; INTERACT, integrilin and enoxaparin randomised assessment of acute coronary syndrome treatment; IU, international units; i.v., intravenous; LD, loading dose; LMWH, low-molecular-weight heparin; MD, maintenance dose; MI, myocardial infarction; n, number of patients; OASIS-5, Organisation to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes-5 trial; RR, relative risk; SC, subcutaneous; SYNERGY, superior yield of the new strategy of enoxaparin, revascularisation and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors; TIMI 11B, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 11B; U, unit; UA, unstable angina; UFH, unfractionated heparin.
Previous Document: Forensic investigation of submersion deaths.
Next Document: Scintigraphy can be used to compare delivery of sore throat formulations.