Treatment of acute myocardial infarction with subcutaneous heparin at low doses

Coagulation status in coronary artery disease patients with type II diabetes mellitus compared with non-diabetic coronary artery disease patients using the PFA-100® and ROTEM®

Previous investigations in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) revealed differences in thromboelastographic parameters indicating different states of coagulability. The aim of the present study was to investigate the coagulation status of patients with documented CAD and type II diabetes mellitus (DM) and non-diabetic patients with coronary artery disease with the PFA-100® and the ROTEM®. No differences were found in platelet function as measured with collagen/epinephrine (263.6 ± 70.6 s vs. 254.6 ± 65.3 s) and collagen/ADP cartridges (105.3 ± 63.2 s vs. 90.6 ± 47.3 s) in CAD patients with DM and CAD patients without DM. Measured with the EXTEM reagent of the ROTEM®, mean maximum clot elasticity (MCE) in patients with CAD and DM (233.6 ± 86.9) was significantly longer than in CAD patients without DM (186.7 ± 54.5), (p = 0.03). A similar result was seen using the INTEM reagent; patients with CAD and DM (234.4 ± 83.9) showed a higher value for MCE than CAD patients without DM (190.8 ± 57.8) which was of borderline significance (p = 0.053). Moreover, a weak trend for higher maximum clot firmness (MCF) was seen in CAD patients with DM compared with CAD patients without DM with the EXTEM reagent (68.1 ± 7.5 vs. 63.6 ± 8.6, p = 0.08) and the INTEM reagent (68.4 ± 7.2 vs. 64.1 ± 8.2, p = 0.09). The ROTEM® analysis indicates increased coagulability in patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus compared to non-diabetic CAD patients. Moreover, the ROTEM® device seems to be an appropriate and easy-to-use tool to describe the coagulation status in these patients groups.

Clinical effects of anticoagulant therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: systematic overview of randomised trials

OBJECTIVES

Most randomised trials of anticoagulant therapy for suspected acute myocardial infarction have been small and, in some, aspirin and fibrinolytic therapy were not used routinely. A systematic overview (meta-analysis) of their results is needed, in particular to assess the clinical effects of adding heparin to aspirin.

DESIGN

Computer aided searches, scrutiny of reference lists, and inquiry of investigators and companies were used to identify potentially eligible studies. On central review, 26 studies were found to involve unconfounded randomised comparisons of anticoagulant therapy versus control in suspected acute myocardial infarction. Additional information on study design and outcome was sought by correspondence with study investigators.

SUBJECTS

Patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction.

INTERVENTIONS

No routine aspirin was used among about 5000 patients in 21 trials (including half of one small trial) that assessed heparin alone or heparin plus oral anticoagulants, and aspirin was used routinely among 68,000 patients in six trials (including the other half of one small trial) that assessed the addition of intravenous or high dose subcutaneous heparin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Death, reinfarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and major bleeds (average follow up of about 10 days).

RESULTS

In the absence of aspirin, anticoagulant therapy reduced mortality by 25% (SD 8%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 38%; 2P = 0.002), representing 35 (11) fewer deaths per 1000. There were also 10 (4) fewer strokes per 1000 (2P = 0.01), 19 (5) fewer pulmonary emboli per 1000 (2P < 0.001), and non-significantly fewer reinfarctions, with about 13 (5) extra major bleeds per 1000 (2P = 0.01). Similar sized effects were seen with the different anticoagulant regimens studied. In the presence of aspirin, however, heparin reduced mortality by only 6% (SD 3%; 0% to 10%; 2P = 0.03), representing just 5 (2) fewer deaths per 1000. There were 3 (1.3) fewer reinfarctions per 1000 (2P = 0.04) and 1 (0.5) fewer pulmonary emboli per 1000 (2P = 0.01), but there was a small non-significant excess of stroke and a definite excess of 3 (1) major bleeds per 1000 (2P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical evidence from randomised trials dose not justify the routine addition of either intravenous or subcutaneous heparin to aspirin in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (irrespective of whether any type of fibrinolytic therapy is used).