Petersen John L, Mahaffey Kenneth W, Hasselblad Vic, Antman Elliott M, Cohen Marc, Goodman Shaun G, Langer Anatoly, Blazing Michael A, Le-Moigne-Amrani Anne, de Lemos James A, Nessel Christopher C, Harrington Robert A, Ferguson James J, Braunwald Eugene, Califf Robert M
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC 27715, USA.
JAMA. 2004 Jul 7;292(1):89-96. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.1.89.
Antithrombin therapy has become a guidelines-recommended standard of care in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but recent trials comparing use of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in ACS have yielded less robust efficacy and safety results than have earlier trials of these antithrombin therapies.
To systematically evaluate the end points of all-cause death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), transfusion, and major bleeding observed in the 6 randomized controlled trials comparing enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in treatment of ACS.
The primary data sets for ESSENCE, A to Z, and SYNERGY were available at the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Baseline characteristics and event frequencies for TIMI 11B, ACUTE II, and INTERACT were provided by the principal investigator of each study.
All 6 randomized controlled trials comparing enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in non-ST-segment elevation ACS were selected for analysis.
Efficacy and safety end points were extracted from the overall trial populations and the subpopulation receiving no antithrombin therapy prior to randomization.
Systematic evaluation of the outcomes for 21 946 patients was performed using a random-effects empirical Bayes model. No significant difference was found in death at 30 days for enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin (3.0% vs 3.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.17). A statistically significant reduction in the combined end point of death or nonfatal MI at 30 days was observed for enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in the overall trial populations (10.1% vs 11.0%; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; number needed to treat, 107). A statistically significant reduction in the combined end point of death or MI at 30 days was also observed for enoxaparin in the populations receiving no prerandomization antithrombin therapy (8.0% vs 9.4%; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.94; number needed to treat, 72). No significant difference was found in blood transfusion (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.14) or major bleeding (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.30) at 7 days after randomization in the overall safety population or in the population of patients receiving no prerandomization antithrombin therapy.
In a systematic overview of approximately 22 000 patients across the spectrum of ACS, enoxaparin is more effective than unfractionated heparin in preventing the combined end point of death or MI.
抗凝血酶治疗已成为治疗急性冠脉综合征(ACS)的指南推荐标准治疗方法,但近期比较依诺肝素和普通肝素在ACS中应用的试验所产生的疗效和安全性结果,不如这些抗凝血酶治疗早期试验的结果那么有力。
系统评价在6项比较依诺肝素和普通肝素治疗ACS的随机对照试验中观察到的全因死亡、非致命性心肌梗死(MI)、输血及严重出血等终点事件。
ESSENCE、A到Z及SYNERGY的原始数据集可从杜克临床研究所获取。TIMI 11B、ACUTE II及INTERACT的基线特征和事件发生率由每项研究的主要研究者提供。
选取所有6项比较依诺肝素和普通肝素治疗非ST段抬高型ACS的随机对照试验进行分析。
从整个试验人群以及随机分组前未接受抗凝血酶治疗的亚组人群中提取疗效和安全性终点数据。
采用随机效应经验贝叶斯模型对21946例患者的结局进行系统评价。依诺肝素与普通肝素在30天时的死亡情况无显著差异(3.0%对3.0%;优势比[OR]为1.00;95%置信区间[CI]为0.85 - 1.17)。在整个试验人群中,依诺肝素与普通肝素相比,30天时死亡或非致命性MI的联合终点有统计学意义的降低(10.1%对11.0%;OR为0.91;95% CI为0.83 - 0.99;需治疗人数为107)。在随机分组前未接受抗凝血酶治疗的人群中,依诺肝素在30天时死亡或MI的联合终点也有统计学意义的降低(8.0%对9.4%;OR为0.81;95% CI为0.70 - 0.94;需治疗人数为72)。在整个安全性人群或随机分组前未接受抗凝血酶治疗的患者人群中,随机分组7天后输血情况(OR为1.01;95% CI为0.89 - 1.14)或严重出血情况(OR为1.04;95% CI为0.83 - 1.30)无显著差异。
在对约22000例不同类型ACS患者的系统综述中,依诺肝素在预防死亡或MI联合终点方面比普通肝素更有效。