General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.
Luhe Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
JAMA. 2015 Apr 7;313(13):1336-46. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.2323.
The safety and efficacy of bivalirudin compared with heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain.
To determine if bivalirudin is superior to heparin alone and to heparin plus tirofiban during primary PCI.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, open-label trial involving 2194 patients with AMI undergoing primary PCI at 82 centers in China between August 2012 and June 2013.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin with a post-PCI infusion (n = 735), heparin alone (n = 729), or heparin plus tirofiban with a post-PCI infusion (n = 730). Among patients treated with bivalirudin, a postprocedure 1.75 mg/kg/h infusion was administered for a median of 180 minutes (IQR, 148-240 minutes).
The primary end point was 30-day net adverse clinical events, a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (all-cause death, reinfarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, or stroke) or bleeding. Additional prespecified safety end points included the rates of acquired thrombocytopenia at 30 days, and stent thrombosis at 30 days and 1 year.
Net adverse clinical events at 30 days occurred in 65 patients (8.8%) of 735 who were treated with bivalirudin compared with 96 patients (13.2%) of 729 treated with heparin (relative risk [RR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; difference, -4.3%, 95% CI, -7.5% to -1.1%; P = .008); and 124 patients (17.0%) of 730 treated with heparin plus tirofiban (RR for bivalirudin vs heparin plus tirofiban, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.69; difference, -8.1%, 95% CI, -11.6% to -4.7%; P < .001). The 30-day bleeding rate was 4.1% for bivalirudin, 7.5% for heparin, and 12.3% for heparin plus tirofiban (P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between treatments in the 30-day rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (5.0% for bivalirudin, 5.8% for heparin, and 4.9% for heparin plus tirofiban, P = .74), stent thrombosis (0.6% vs 0.9% vs 0.7%, respectively, P = .77), acquired thrombocytopenia (0.1% vs 0.7% vs 1.1%; P = .07), or in acute (<24-hour) stent thrombosis (0.3% in each group). At the 1-year follow-up, the results remained similar.
Among patients with AMI undergoing primary PCI, the use of bivalirudin with a median 3-hour postprocedure PCI-dose infusion resulted in a decrease in net adverse clinical events compared with both heparin alone and heparin plus tirofiban. This finding was primarily due to a reduction in bleeding events with bivalirudin, without significant differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebral events or stent thrombosis.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01696110.
在接受直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者中,比伐卢定与肝素联合或不联合糖蛋白 IIb/IIIa 抑制剂相比的安全性和疗效尚不确定。
确定在直接 PCI 期间,与单独使用肝素和肝素联合替罗非班相比,比伐卢定是否更优。
设计、地点和参与者:多中心、开放性试验,涉及 2012 年 8 月至 2013 年 6 月期间在中国 82 个中心接受直接 PCI 的 2194 例 AMI 患者。
患者随机分为接受比伐卢定联合 PCI 后输注(n = 735)、单独使用肝素(n = 729)或肝素联合 PCI 后输注替罗非班(n = 730)。接受比伐卢定治疗的患者中,术后给予 1.75mg/kg/h 的输注,中位数输注时间为 180 分钟(IQR,148-240 分钟)。
30 天净不良临床事件,包括主要不良心脏或脑事件(全因死亡、再梗死、缺血驱动的靶血管血运重建或卒中)或出血的复合终点。其他预先指定的安全性终点包括 30 天获得性血小板减少症的发生率和 30 天和 1 年的支架血栓形成率。
与 729 例接受肝素治疗的患者(13.2%)相比,接受比伐卢定治疗的 735 例患者(8.8%)中 30 天内发生净不良临床事件的相对风险(RR)为 0.67(95%CI,0.50-0.90;差异,-4.3%,95%CI,-7.5%至-1.1%;P = 0.008);与 730 例接受肝素联合替罗非班治疗的患者(17.0%)相比,RR 为 0.52(95%CI,0.39-0.69;差异,-8.1%,95%CI,-11.6%至-4.7%;P < 0.001)。比伐卢定、肝素和肝素联合替罗非班的 30 天出血率分别为 4.1%、7.5%和 12.3%(P < 0.001)。治疗组之间 30 天主要不良心脏或脑事件发生率(5.0% vs 5.8% vs 4.9%,P = 0.74)、支架血栓形成率(0.6% vs 0.9% vs 0.7%,P = 0.77)、获得性血小板减少症发生率(0.1% vs 0.7% vs 1.1%,P = 0.07)或急性(<24 小时)支架血栓形成率(每组 0.3%)均无统计学差异。在 1 年随访时,结果仍然相似。
在接受直接 PCI 的 AMI 患者中,与单独使用肝素和肝素联合替罗非班相比,使用中位数 3 小时 PCI 后剂量输注的比伐卢定可降低净不良临床事件发生率。这一发现主要是由于比伐卢定减少了出血事件,而主要不良心脏或脑事件或支架血栓形成无显著差异。
clinicaltrials.gov 标识符:NCT01696110。