Subcutaneous enoxaparin with early invasive strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes

Parenteral anticoagulants in heart disease: Current status and perspectives (Section II)

Anticoagulants are a mainstay of cardiovascular therapy, and parenteral anticoagulants have widespread use in cardiology, especially in acute situations. Parenteral anticoagulants include unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins, the synthetic pentasaccharides fondaparinux, idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux, and parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors. The several shortcomings of unfractionated heparin and of low-molecular-weight heparins have prompted the development of the other newer agents. Here we review the mechanisms of action, pharmacological properties and side effects of parenteral anticoagulants used in the management of coronary heart disease treated with or without percutaneous coronary interventions, cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, and prosthetic heart valves and valve repair. Using an evidence-based approach, we describe the results of completed clinical trials, highlight ongoing research with currently available agents, and recommend therapeutic options for specific heart diseases.

Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1996 to May 2011.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised and non-randomised studies comparing enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention and reporting on both mortality (efficacy end point) and major bleeding (safety end point) outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Sample size, characteristics, and outcomes, extracted independently and analysed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

23 trials representing 30,966 patients were identified, including 10,243 patients (33.1%) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction, 8750 (28.2%) undergoing secondary percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis, and 11,973 (38.7%) with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 13,943 patients (45.0%) received enoxaparin and 17,023 (55.0%) unfractionated heparin. Enoxaparin was associated with significant reductions in death (relative risk 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.76; P<0.001), the composite of death or myocardial infarction (0.68, 0.57 to 0.81; P<0.001), and complications of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.6 to 0.85; P<0.001), and a reduction in incidence of major bleeding (0.80, 0.68 to 0.95; P=0.009). In patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the reduction in death (0.52, 0.42 to 0.64; P<0.001) was particularly significant and associated with a reduction in major bleeding (0.72, 0.56 to 0.93; P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Enoxaparin seems to be superior to unfractionated heparin in reducing mortality and bleeding outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention and particularly in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction.

Role of enoxaparin resistance in recurrent chest pain in the intensive care unit

To investigate the relationship between anticoagulation treatment and drug resistance in chest pain, levels of factor Xa residual activity were determined in patients seen in intensive care with recurrent chest pain and compared with levels in patients who had no ischaemic events during hospitalization. A total of 122 patients aged 18 - 75 years who were admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndrome and treated with enoxaparin were included. Of these, 62 patients had recurrent chest pain while hospitalized (group A) and 60 patients had an uneventful follow-up period (group B). Patients requiring primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and/or treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and those with renal failure, a high risk of bleeding or receiving anti-inflammatory drugs were excluded from the study. Median levels (+/- interquartile range) of factor Xa residual activity were significantly higher in group A compared with group B (0.68 +/- 0.29 IU/ml versus 0.34 +/- 0.33 IU/ml). It is concluded that enoxaparin resistance, resulting in high levels of factor Xa residual activity, should be considered in patients with recurrent ischaemia.

A novel enoxaparin regime for ST elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A WEST sub-study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the anticoagulation effect of subcutaneous (SQ) and intravenous (IV) enoxaparin through systematic anti-Xa sampling during primary PCI for acute STEMI.

BACKGROUND

Although appropriate anticoagulation is essential to maximize the efficacy and safety of primary PCI, the optimal dosing of enoxaparin in this setting is unclear.

METHODS

STEMI patients randomized to primary PCI received ASA, clopidogrel 300 mg and enoxaparin 1 mg/kg SQ at earliest point of care, including prehospital. Plasma anti-Xa determination occurred just prior to and after primary PCI. Supplemental IV enoxaparin (0.3-0.5 mg/kg) and abciximab was encouraged prior to PCI.

RESULTS

The 1st anti-Xa level 56 min (median, IQR 47-77) post SQ enoxaparin was 0.28 U/ml (0.23-0.41); 85% of patients (28/33) were <0.5 U/ml (the recommended therapeutic level). Following PCI, 126 min (118-185) after SQ enoxaparin in those without IV dosing (8/33) the 2nd anti-Xa level was 0.44 U/ml (0.29-0.53); 6 of 8 patients remained <0.5 U/ml. With IV enoxaparin (25/33) the 2nd anti-Xa was 0.96 U/ml (0.82-1.16) 97 min (82-109) after SQ enoxaparin: all were >or=0.5 U/ml and 2 had levels 1.5 U/ml.

CONCLUSION

A single SQ enoxaparin dose fails to achieve anti-Xa levels >or=0.5 U/ml in the majority of STEMI patients. When combined with a strategy of supplemental IV enoxaparin, adequate anti-Xa levels were achieved in all patients with few having levels >1.5 U/ml. This regime of SQ injection with additional IV enoxaparin provides an attractive strategy enhancing effective early anti-thrombotic therapy at first medical contact prior to primary PCI.

Non ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: A simplified risk-orientated algorithm

Non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) include a clinical spectrum that ranges from unstable angina to NSTE myocardial infarction. Management goals aim to prevent recurrent ACS and improve long-term outcomes by choosing a treatment strategy according to an estimate of the risk of an adverse outcome. Recent registry data suggest that patients with NSTE ACS frequently do not receive recommended treatment, and that risk stratification is not used to determine either the choice of treatment or the speed of access to coronary angiography. The present article evaluates the evidence for recommended treatment using information from recent trials and guidelines published by the major cardiac organizations in Europe and North America. Using this information, a multidisciplinary group developed a simplified algorithm that uses risk stratification to select an optimal early management strategy. Long-term outcomes are improved by a multi-faceted vascular protection strategy that is initiated at the time of hospitalization for NSTE ACS.

Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology

In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly--independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.

Role of low-molecular-weight heparin in invasive management of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes

OBJECTIVE

To review the available literature addressing the role of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treatment of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS).

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search (1966-March 2004) identified pertinent articles using the key words acute coronary syndromes, unstable angina, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, low-molecular-weight heparin, enoxaparin, dalteparin, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists, abciximab, tirofiban, eptifibatide, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and percutaneous coronary intervention. The references of these articles were reviewed for additional pertinent references.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All human trials of LMWH in PCI for treatment of NSTEACS were evaluated. All pertinent studies were included in the review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Administration of LMWH with or without a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor during PCI appears to be similar to UFH in terms of efficacy. LMWH, especially in combination with a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, may increase risk of bleeding compared with UFH.

CONCLUSIONS

Available clinical trials do not provide definitive evidence to suggest superiority of LMWH over UFH when managing NSTEACS during PCI; however, dosing strategies are available if an LMWH is to be used in this setting.