Omran Jad, Abdullah Obai, Abu-Fadel Mazen, Gray William A, Firwana Belal, Drachman Douglas E, Mahmud Ehtisham, Aronow Herebert D, White Christopher J, Al-Dadah Ashraf S
Cardiovascular Medicine Department at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine, Columbia, Missouri.
Internal Medicine Department, University of Florida Collage of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Mar 1;89(4):746-753. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26685. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
Bivalirudin, has been shown to have comparable efficacy and better safety profile when compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in percutaneous coronary interventions. Bivalirudin's safety in carotid artery stenting (CAS) was associated with better outcomes than heparin in some studies. In this Meta analysis we examine the hemorrhagic and ischemic outcomes associated with Bivalirudin compared to UFH during CAS.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted with the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Random-effects meta-analysis method was used to pool risk ratio (RR) for both Heparin and Bivalirudin with 95% confidence interval (CI). Study outcomes included hemorrhagic complications; major/minor bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) as well as ischemic complications including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and 30 day mortality.
A total of four studies were included enrolling 7,784 patients. Compared to UFH, Bivalirudin was associated with significantly lower major bleeding events with a relative risk (RR) of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.35-0.80; I = 0%). Minor bleeding events were significantly lower in the Bivalirudin group with a RR of 0.41 (95% CI: 0.2-0.82; I = 0%). Looking into other outcomes, there were no significant differences between anticoagulation strategies in terms of ischemic stroke (RR 0.8, with 95% CI: 0.60-1.06), intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.73 with 95% CI: 0.27-1.98), myocardial infarction (RR 1.01 with 95% CI: 0.59-1.73) or 30 day mortality (RR 0.83 with 95% CI: 0.47-1.47).
Compared to UFH, Bivalirudin is associated with lower bleeding risk when used during CAS. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中,比伐卢定与普通肝素(UFH)相比,已显示出具有相当的疗效和更好的安全性。在一些研究中,比伐卢定在颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)中的安全性与肝素相比,结局更好。在这项荟萃分析中,我们研究了在CAS期间,与UFH相比,比伐卢定相关的出血和缺血性结局。
通过电子数据库MEDLINE、EMBASE和CENTRAL进行全面的文献检索。采用随机效应荟萃分析方法,汇总肝素和比伐卢定的风险比(RR)及95%置信区间(CI)。研究结局包括出血并发症;主要/轻微出血和颅内出血(ICH)以及缺血性并发症,包括缺血性卒中、心肌梗死和30天死亡率。
共纳入四项研究,涉及7784例患者。与UFH相比,比伐卢定与显著更低的主要出血事件相关,相对风险(RR)为0.53(95%CI:0.35-0.80;I²=0%)。比伐卢定组的轻微出血事件显著更低,RR为0.41(95%CI:0.2-0.82;I²=0%)。在其他结局方面,抗凝策略在缺血性卒中(RR 0.8,95%CI:0.60-1.06)、颅内出血(RR 0.73,95%CI:0.27-1.98)、心肌梗死(RR 1.01,95%CI:0.59-1.73)或30天死亡率(RR 0.83,95%CI:0.47-1.47)方面无显著差异。
与UFH相比,比伐卢定在CAS期间使用时出血风险更低。©2016威利期刊公司