Eur Heart J. 1999 Nov;20(21):1553-62. doi: 10.1053/euhj.1999.1879.
To assess the benefit of short-term low molecular weight heparin nadroparin compared with unfractionated heparin in unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction patients and to determine whether a longer, 2-week low molecular weight heparin regimen would offer additional clinical benefit.
PATIENTS, METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a multicentre, prospective, randomized, double-blind study in three parallel groups, involving 3468 patients. Patients received one of three treatment regimens: the unfractionated heparin group received an intravenous bolus of unfractionated heparin 5000 IU, followed by an activated partial thromboplastin time adjusted infusion of unfractionated heparin for 6+/-2 days; the nadroparin 6 group received an intravenous bolus of nadroparin 86 anti-Xa IU. kg(-1), followed by twice daily subcutaneous injections of nadroparin 86 anti-Xa IU. kg(-1)for 6+/-2 days, and the nadroparin 14 group received an intravenous bolus of nadroparin 86 anti-Xa IU. kg(-1), followed by twice daily subcutaneous injections of nadroparin 86 anti-Xa IU. kg(-1)for 14 days. No statistically significant differences were observed between the three treatment regimens with respect to the primary outcome (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, refractory angina, or recurrence of unstable angina at day 14). The absolute differences between the groups in the incidence of the primary outcome were: -0.3% (P=0.85) for the nadroparin 6 group vs the unfractionated heparin group and +1.9% (P=0.24) for the nadroparin 14 group vs the unfractionated heparin group. Furthermore, there were no significant intergroup differences regarding any of the secondary efficacy outcomes. However, there was an increased risk of major haemorrhages in the nadroparin 14 group compared with unfractionated heparin (3.5% vs 1.6%;P=0.0035).
Treatment with nadroparin for 6+/-2 days provides similar efficacy and safety to treatment with unfractionated heparin, for the same period, in the therapeutic management of acute unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction, and may be easier to administer. A prolonged regimen of nadroparin (14 days) does not provide any additional clinical benefit.
评估在不稳定型心绞痛或非Q波心肌梗死患者中,短期使用低分子量肝素那屈肝素与普通肝素相比的益处,并确定延长至2周的低分子量肝素治疗方案是否能带来额外的临床益处。
患者、方法与结果:这是一项多中心、前瞻性、随机、双盲研究,分为三个平行组,共纳入3468例患者。患者接受三种治疗方案之一:普通肝素组静脉注射5000 IU普通肝素推注剂量,随后根据活化部分凝血活酶时间调整普通肝素输注剂量,持续6±2天;那屈肝素6组静脉注射86抗Xa IU·kg⁻¹那屈肝素推注剂量,随后每日两次皮下注射86抗Xa IU·kg⁻¹那屈肝素,持续6±2天;那屈肝素14组静脉注射86抗Xa IU·kg⁻¹那屈肝素推注剂量,随后每日两次皮下注射86抗Xa IU·kg⁻¹那屈肝素,持续14天。在主要结局(第14天的心脏死亡、心肌梗死、难治性心绞痛或不稳定型心绞痛复发)方面,三种治疗方案之间未观察到统计学显著差异。主要结局发生率在各治疗组之间的绝对差异为:那屈肝素6组与普通肝素组相比为 -0.3%(P = 0.85),那屈肝素14组与普通肝素组相比为 +1.9%(P = 0.24)。此外,在任何次要疗效结局方面,组间均无显著差异。然而,与普通肝素相比,那屈肝素14组发生大出血的风险增加(3.5%对1.6%;P = 0.0035)。
在急性不稳定型心绞痛或非Q波心肌梗死的治疗管理中,那屈肝素治疗6±2天与同期普通肝素治疗具有相似的疗效和安全性,且可能更易于给药。延长那屈肝素治疗方案(14天)并未带来任何额外的临床益处。