Efficacy and safety of unfractionated heparin versus enoxaparin: a pooled analysis of ASSENT-3 and -3 PLUS data.

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic therapy to accompany tenecteplase in cases of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unclear. We undertook a prespecified pooled analysis of data from the ASSENT-3 and ASSENT-3 PLUS trials.

METHODS

We created a combined database of the 2040 and 818 patients who received enoxaparin in ASSENT-3 and ASSENT-3 PLUS, respectively, and compared them with the 2038 and 821 patients who received unfractionated heparin.

RESULTS

The efficacy end point (a composite of 30-day mortality, reinfarction or refractory ischemia) was 12.2% with enoxaparin versus 16.0% with unfractionated heparin (p < 0.001); the combined end point of efficacy plus safety (a composite of 30-day mortality, reinfarction, refractory ischemia, intracranial hemorrhage [ICH] or major systemic bleeding) was 15.0% versus 18.0%, respectively (p = 0.003) [corrected] The 1049 patients urgently revascularized had greater benefit from enoxaparin (15.4% v. 10.1%, p = 0.013), yet the excess in major systemic bleeding evident with enoxaparin (3.3% v. 2.4%, p = 0.01) was largely confined to the 3492 patients without or before revascularization. Although ICH rates in the groups were similar (1.3% v. 0.9%, p = 0.26), an excess of ICH occurred among those administered enoxaparin during the ASSENT-3 PLUS trial (6.7% v. 0.8%, p = 0.013), especially among women over 75 years of age.

INTERPRETATION

These data demonstrated the benefit of enoxaparin used in conjunction with tenecteplase, but raised caution about its prehospital use to treat STEMI in elderly women.