M Haisum Maqsood, Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland, Frederick Feit, Sripal Bangalore
{"title":"重新审视比伐卢定对接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者的疗效和安全性:来自随机试验混合治疗比较元分析的启示》。","authors":"M Haisum Maqsood, Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland, Frederick Feit, Sripal Bangalore","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Randomized trials of bivalirudin in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have yielded heterogeneous results.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of four antithrombin regimens-unfractionated heparin (UFH), bivalirudin (stopped soon after percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]), extended bivalirudin (continued for a few hours after PCI), and combined UFH and a Gp2b3a inhibitors (GPI) in patients who present with STEMI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the above antithrombin in patients with STEMI. The primary outcome was net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE). The primary ischemic endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding, and other endpoints included all-cause mortality and stent thrombosis. The primary analysis compared the effect of these antithrombin regimens in reference to UFH using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 14 RCTs evaluating 25,415 patients with STEMI, when compared to UFH monotherapy, extended bivalirudin lowered NACE (OR = 0.71 with 95% CI: 0.53-0.96; moderate level of confidence) driven by a significant decrease in major bleeding (OR = 0.42 with 95% CI: 0.26-0.68; high level of confidence) without any significant difference in MACE or all-cause mortality. When compared with UFH monotherapy, UFH+GPI reduced risk of MACE (OR = 0.76 with 95% CI: 0.60-0.97; high level of confidence) but at the expense of an increase in major bleeding (OR = 1.48 with 95% CI: 1.11-1.98; high level of confidence) with no difference in NACE or all-cause mortality. For major bleeding, extended bivalirudin infusion ranked #1, bivalirudin ranked #2, UFH monotherapy ranked #3, and combined UFH and GPI ranked #4. For NACE, extended bivalirudin infusion ranked #1, bivalirudin ranked #2, combined UFH and GPI ranked #3, and UFH monotherapy ranked #4. Cluster plots for MACE and major bleeding demonstrated that extended bivalirudin had the best balance for efficacy and safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients undergoing PCI for STEMI, extended bivalirudin offers the best balance for primary ischemic (MACE) and safety (major bleeding) outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting the Efficacy and Safety of Bivalirudin in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From a Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.\",\"authors\":\"M Haisum Maqsood, Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland, Frederick Feit, Sripal Bangalore\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ccd.31276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Randomized trials of bivalirudin in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have yielded heterogeneous results.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of four antithrombin regimens-unfractionated heparin (UFH), bivalirudin (stopped soon after percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]), extended bivalirudin (continued for a few hours after PCI), and combined UFH and a Gp2b3a inhibitors (GPI) in patients who present with STEMI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the above antithrombin in patients with STEMI. The primary outcome was net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE). The primary ischemic endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding, and other endpoints included all-cause mortality and stent thrombosis. The primary analysis compared the effect of these antithrombin regimens in reference to UFH using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 14 RCTs evaluating 25,415 patients with STEMI, when compared to UFH monotherapy, extended bivalirudin lowered NACE (OR = 0.71 with 95% CI: 0.53-0.96; moderate level of confidence) driven by a significant decrease in major bleeding (OR = 0.42 with 95% CI: 0.26-0.68; high level of confidence) without any significant difference in MACE or all-cause mortality. When compared with UFH monotherapy, UFH+GPI reduced risk of MACE (OR = 0.76 with 95% CI: 0.60-0.97; high level of confidence) but at the expense of an increase in major bleeding (OR = 1.48 with 95% CI: 1.11-1.98; high level of confidence) with no difference in NACE or all-cause mortality. For major bleeding, extended bivalirudin infusion ranked #1, bivalirudin ranked #2, UFH monotherapy ranked #3, and combined UFH and GPI ranked #4. For NACE, extended bivalirudin infusion ranked #1, bivalirudin ranked #2, combined UFH and GPI ranked #3, and UFH monotherapy ranked #4. Cluster plots for MACE and major bleeding demonstrated that extended bivalirudin had the best balance for efficacy and safety.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients undergoing PCI for STEMI, extended bivalirudin offers the best balance for primary ischemic (MACE) and safety (major bleeding) outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31276\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31276","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Revisiting the Efficacy and Safety of Bivalirudin in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From a Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Background: Randomized trials of bivalirudin in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have yielded heterogeneous results.
Aims: Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of four antithrombin regimens-unfractionated heparin (UFH), bivalirudin (stopped soon after percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]), extended bivalirudin (continued for a few hours after PCI), and combined UFH and a Gp2b3a inhibitors (GPI) in patients who present with STEMI.
Methods: A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the above antithrombin in patients with STEMI. The primary outcome was net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE). The primary ischemic endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding, and other endpoints included all-cause mortality and stent thrombosis. The primary analysis compared the effect of these antithrombin regimens in reference to UFH using a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.
Results: In the 14 RCTs evaluating 25,415 patients with STEMI, when compared to UFH monotherapy, extended bivalirudin lowered NACE (OR = 0.71 with 95% CI: 0.53-0.96; moderate level of confidence) driven by a significant decrease in major bleeding (OR = 0.42 with 95% CI: 0.26-0.68; high level of confidence) without any significant difference in MACE or all-cause mortality. When compared with UFH monotherapy, UFH+GPI reduced risk of MACE (OR = 0.76 with 95% CI: 0.60-0.97; high level of confidence) but at the expense of an increase in major bleeding (OR = 1.48 with 95% CI: 1.11-1.98; high level of confidence) with no difference in NACE or all-cause mortality. For major bleeding, extended bivalirudin infusion ranked #1, bivalirudin ranked #2, UFH monotherapy ranked #3, and combined UFH and GPI ranked #4. For NACE, extended bivalirudin infusion ranked #1, bivalirudin ranked #2, combined UFH and GPI ranked #3, and UFH monotherapy ranked #4. Cluster plots for MACE and major bleeding demonstrated that extended bivalirudin had the best balance for efficacy and safety.
Conclusions: In patients undergoing PCI for STEMI, extended bivalirudin offers the best balance for primary ischemic (MACE) and safety (major bleeding) outcomes.
期刊介绍:
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions is an international journal covering the broad field of cardiovascular diseases. Subject material includes basic and clinical information that is derived from or related to invasive and interventional coronary or peripheral vascular techniques. The journal focuses on material that will be of immediate practical value to physicians providing patient care in the clinical laboratory setting. To accomplish this, the journal publishes Preliminary Reports and Work In Progress articles that complement the traditional Original Studies, Case Reports, and Comprehensive Reviews. Perspective and insight concerning controversial subjects and evolving technologies are provided regularly through Editorial Commentaries furnished by members of the Editorial Board and other experts. Articles are subject to double-blind peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability.