Department of Cardiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Department of Cardiology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport, Shreveport, Louisiana.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Aug 8;9(15):1523-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.05.023.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to study the relation between access site and bivalirudin use on outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
Bivalirudin and radial access use are 2 strategies that are increasingly used to lower major bleeding in patients with ACS undergoing invasive approaches. The interaction between these 2 strategies and the benefit of using them in combination are unclear.
This analysis included randomized controlled trials that compared bivalirudin to heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with ACS and reported outcomes stratified by arterial access site. Meta-analyses of outcome data were performed on the basis of access site and anticoagulation regimen. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from event rates using random-effects models.
Eight trials with a total of 27,491 patients were included. Bivalirudin reduced major bleeding risk in patients with femoral access (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.6; p < 0.001) but not in patients with radial access (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.26; p = 0.28). Moreover, radial access reduced major bleeding risk in patients treated with heparin (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.77; p < 0.001) but not in patients treated with bivalirudin (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.41; p = 0.83). There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality between bivalirudin and heparin, regardless of access site.
Bivalirudin reduces bleeding risk only with femoral access, and radial access reduces bleeding risk only with heparin anticoagulation. Therefore, there is no additional benefit to the combined use of bivalirudin and radial access strategies in patients with ACS.
本荟萃分析旨在研究急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者的入路部位与比伐卢定使用之间的关系。
比伐卢定和桡动脉入路是 2 种策略,越来越多地用于降低接受介入治疗的 ACS 患者的大出血风险。这 2 种策略之间的相互作用以及联合使用它们的益处尚不清楚。
本分析纳入了比较 ACS 患者中比伐卢定与肝素加或不加糖蛋白 IIb/IIIa 抑制剂,并按动脉入路部位分层报告结局的随机对照试验。根据入路部位和抗凝方案对结局数据进行荟萃分析。使用随机效应模型从事件发生率计算汇总优势比(OR)和 95%置信区间(CI)。
共纳入 8 项试验,总计 27491 例患者。比伐卢定降低股动脉入路患者的大出血风险(OR:0.51;95%CI:0.46 至 0.6;p<0.001),但不降低桡动脉入路患者的大出血风险(OR:0.75;95%CI:0.45 至 1.26;p=0.28)。此外,桡动脉入路降低肝素治疗患者的大出血风险(OR:0.57;95%CI:0.43 至 0.77;p<0.001),但不降低比伐卢定治疗患者的大出血风险(OR:0.96;95%CI:0.65 至 1.41;p=0.83)。无论入路部位如何,比伐卢定与肝素治疗在主要不良心血管事件或全因死亡率方面均无差异。
比伐卢定仅降低股动脉入路的出血风险,而桡动脉入路仅降低肝素抗凝的出血风险。因此,ACS 患者联合使用比伐卢定和桡动脉入路策略没有额外获益。