Department of Cardiology, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
PLoS One. 2021 Oct 26;16(10):e0259148. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259148. eCollection 2021.
The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI.
We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in patients undergoing rescue PCI.
Between 2010-2015, we randomly assigned 83 patients undergoing rescue PCI to bivalirudin (n = 42) or heparin ± GPIs (n = 41). The primary safety endpoint was any ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) bleeding at 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was infarct size measured by peak troponin levels as a multiple of the local upper reference limit (Tn/URL). Secondary endpoints included periprocedural change in haemoglobin adjusted for red cells transfused, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding, ST-segment recovery and infarct size determined by the Selvester QRS score.
The trial was terminated due to slow recruitment and futility after an interim analysis of 83 patients. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 6 (14%) patients in the bivalirudin group (4.8% GPIs) and 3 (7.3%) in the heparin ± GPIs group (54% GPIs) (risk ratio, 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-7.3, P = 0.48). Infarct size was similar between the two groups (mean Tn/URL, 730 [±675] for bivalirudin, versus 984 [±1585] for heparin ± GPIs, difference, 254, 95% CI, -283-794, P = 0.86). There was a smaller decrease in the periprocedural haemoglobin level with bivalirudin than heparin ± GPIs (-7.5% [±15] versus -14% [±17], difference, -6.5%, 95% CI, -0.83-14, P = 0.0067). The rate of complete (≥70%) ST-segment recovery post-PCI was higher in patients randomised to heparin ± GPIs compared with bivalirudin.
Whether bivalirudin compared with heparin ± GPI reduces bleeding in rescue PCI could not be determined. Slow recruitment and futility in the context of lower-than-expected bleeding event rates led to the termination of this trial (ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12610000152022).
在接受挽救性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者中,尚未对比伐卢定的安全性和疗效进行随机对照试验评估。
我们开展了一项开放标签、多中心、随机对照试验,旨在比较比伐卢定与肝素+糖蛋白 IIb/IIIa 抑制剂(GPI)在接受挽救性 PCI 的患者中的疗效。
在 2010 年至 2015 年期间,我们将 83 例接受挽救性 PCI 的患者随机分配至比伐卢定组(n=42)或肝素+GPI 组(n=41)。主要安全性终点为 90 天内任何 ACUITY(急性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗和紧急干预分类策略)出血。主要疗效终点为通过峰值肌钙蛋白水平与局部上限参考值(Tn/URL)的比值评估的梗死面积。次要终点包括经校正红细胞输注的血红蛋白的围手术期变化、TIMI(血栓溶解治疗心肌梗死)出血、ST 段恢复和通过 Selvester QRS 评分确定的梗死面积。
由于中期分析纳入的 83 例患者招募速度缓慢且结果无效,该试验提前终止。在比伐卢定组有 6 例(14%)和肝素+GPI 组有 3 例(7.3%)患者发生主要安全性终点事件(GPI 组分别为 4.8%和 54%)(风险比,1.95;95%置信区间,0.52-7.3;P=0.48)。两组的梗死面积相似(比伐卢定组平均 Tn/URL 为 730[±675],肝素+GPI 组为 984[±1585],差值为 254;95%置信区间,-283-794;P=0.86)。与肝素+GPI 组相比,比伐卢定组血红蛋白的围手术期水平下降幅度较小(-7.5%[±15]与-14%[±17],差值为-6.5%;95%置信区间,-0.83-14;P=0.0067)。与比伐卢定相比,肝素+GPI 组患者 PCI 术后完全(≥70%)ST 段恢复的发生率更高。
在挽救性 PCI 中,与肝素+GPI 相比,比伐卢定是否能降低出血事件的发生尚不能确定。由于出血事件发生率低于预期,招募速度缓慢且结果无效,该试验提前终止(ANZCTR.org.au,ACTRN12610000152022)。