The TETAMI trial: the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous enoxaparin versus intravenous unfractionated heparin and of tirofiban versus placebo in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction for patients not thrombolyzed: methods and design

Diagnosis and Management of Late-presentation ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction and Complications

The incidence of late presentation of myocardial infarction varies between 8.5% and 40%. Late revascularization of an infarct-related artery may limit infarct size and remodeling, reduce electrical instability, and may provide supplemental blood supply to that area via collaterals. Randomized clinical trials have shown a benefit of revascularization in symptomatic and hemodynamically unstable latecomers. Image stress testing can be beneficial to guide management of asymptomatic late presenters. Higher rates of myocardial infarction complications occur with late presentations, so a high level of suspicion is required for early diagnosis. Surgical repair remains the gold standard for management of mechanical complications.

Rationale and design of the RIGHT trial: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of anticoagulation prolongation versus no anticoagulation after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, whether anticoagulation should be continued after pPCI has not been well investigated.

METHODS/DESIGN

The RIGHT trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in STEMI patients treated with pPCI evaluating the prolongation of anticoagulation after the procedure. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either prolonged anticoagulant or matching placebo (no anticoagulation) for at least 48 hours after the procedure. When randomized to anticoagulation prolongation, the patient is assigned to intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) or subcutaneous enoxaparin or intravenous bivalirudin (same drug and same regimen at each center). The primary efficacy endpoint is the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, stent thrombosis (definite) or urgent revascularization (any vessel) at 30 days. The primary safety endpoint is major bleeding (BARC 3-5) at 30 days. Based on a superiority design and assuming a 35% relative risk reduction (from 7% to 4.5%), 2856 patients will be enrolled, accounting for a 5% drop-out rate (α = 0.05 and power = 80%).

CONCLUSION

The RIGHT trial tests the hypothesis that post-procedural anticoagulation is superior to no anticoagulation in reducing ischemic events in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI.

Heparin versus placebo for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) represent a spectrum of disease including unstable angina and non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Despite treatment with aspirin, beta-blockers and nitroglycerin, unstable angina/NSTEMI is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although evidence suggests that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is more efficacious compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), there is limited data to support the role of heparins as a drug class in the treatment of NSTEACS. This is an update of a review last published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of heparins (UFH and LMWH) compared with placebo for the treatment of patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or NSTEMI).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Heart Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to January week 1 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to 2014 week 02), CINAHL (1937 to 15 January 2014) and LILACS (1982 to 15 January 2014). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of parenteral UFH or LMWH versus placebo in people with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or NSTEMI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed quality of studies and independently extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no new included studies for this update. Eight studies (3118 participants) were included in this review. We found no evidence for difference in overall mortality between the groups treated with heparin and placebo (risk ratio (RR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.98). Heparins compared with placebo, reduced the occurrence of myocardial infarction in patients with unstable angina and NSTEMI (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63, number needed to benefit (NNTB) = 33). There was a trend towards more major bleeds in the heparin studies compared to control studies (RR = 2.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.60). From a limited data set, there appeared to be no difference between patients treated with heparins compared to control in the occurrence of thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.24). Assessment of overall risk of bias in these studies was limited as most of the studies did not give sufficient detail to allow assessment of potential risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, patients treated with heparins had a similar risk of mortality, revascularization, recurrent angina, and thrombocytopenia. However, those treated with heparins had a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and a higher incidence of minor bleeding. Overall, the evidence assessed in this review was classified as low quality according to the GRADE approach. The results presented in this review must therefore be interpreted with caution.

Heparin versus placebo for acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a spectrum of disease including unstable angina (UA) and non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Despite treatment with aspirin, beta-blockers and nitroglycerin, UA/NSTEMI is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although emerging evidence suggests that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is more efficacious compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), there is limited data to support the role of heparins as a drug class in the treatment of ACS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of heparins (UFH and LMWH) compared with placebo for the treatment of patients with ACS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2002), EMBASE (1980 to May 2002) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2002). Authors of included studies and pharmaceutical industry representatives were contacted to determine if unpublished studies which met the inclusion criteria were available.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials of parenteral UFH or LMWH versus placebo in people with ACS (UA or NSTEMI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed quality of studies. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted to verify and clarify missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (3118 participants) were included in this review. We found no evidence for difference in overall mortality between the groups treated with heparin and placebo (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.98). Heparins reduced the occurrence of MI (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63, NNT = 33). An increase in the incidence of minor bleeds (RR = 6.80, 95% CI 1.23 to 37.49, NNH = 17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, patients treated with heparins had similar risk of mortality, revascularization, recurrent angina, major bleeding and thrombocytopenia. However, those treated with heparins had decreased risk of MI and a higher incidence of minor bleeding.

Unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin as adjuncts to thrombolysis in aspirin-treated patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the role of intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with aspirin and thrombolysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a meta-analysis of the randomized trials to assess the effect of UFH and LMWH on reinfarction, death, stroke, and bleeding. Fourteen trials involving a total of 25,280 patients were included (1239 comparing intravenous UFH versus placebo or no heparin; 16,943 comparing LMWH versus placebo; and 7098 comparing LMWH versus intravenous UFH). Intravenous UFH during hospitalization did not reduce reinfarction (3.5% versus 3.3%; odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.99) or death (4.8% versus 4.6%; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.78) and did not increase major bleeding (4.2% versus 3.4%; OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.18) but increased minor bleeding (19.6% versus 12.5%; OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.43). During hospitalization/at 7 days, LMWH compared with placebo reduced the risk of reinfarction by approximately one quarter (1.6% versus 2.2%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.90; number needed to treat [NNT]=167) and death by &10% (7.8% versus 8.7%; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; NNT=111) but increased major bleeding (1.1% versus 0.4%; OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.83 to 3.99; number needed to harm [NNH]=143) and intracranial bleeding (0.3% versus 0.1%; OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 4.52; NNH=500). The reduction in death with LMWH remained evident at 30 days. LMWH compared with UFH during hospitalization/at 7 days reduced reinfarction by &45% (3.0% versus 5.2%; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.73; NNT=45), did not reduce death (4.8% versus 5.3%; OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13) or increase major bleeding (3.3% versus 2.5%; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.72), but increased minor bleeding (22.8% vs 19.4%; OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.43). The reduction in reinfarction remained evident at 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

In aspirin-treated patients with STEMI who are treated with thrombolysis, intravenous UFH has not been shown to prevent reinfarction or death. LMWH given for 4 to 8 days compared with placebo reduces reinfarction by approximately one quarter and death by &10% and when directly compared with UFH reduces reinfarction by almost one half. These data suggest that LMWH should be the preferred antithrombin in this setting.

The Role of Gender and Other Factors as Predictors of Not Receiving Reperfusion Therapy and of Outcome in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

The standard of care for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is prompt coronary reperfusion with thrombolysis or percutaneous coronary intervention. Women have higher mortality rates than men following STEMI and fewer women are considered eligible for reperfusion therapy. We analyzed the impact of gender, and other factors, on the outcome and treatment of STEMI in the TETAMI trial and registry.

METHODS

This exploratory analysis included 2741 patients from Treatment with Enoxaparin and Tirofiban in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TETAMI) presenting with STEMI within 24 hours of symptom onset. The primary composite end point was the combined incidence of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and recurrent angina, at 30 days. Three multivariate analyses were performed to determine predictors of not receiving reperfusion therapy, the composite end point, or death.

RESULTS

The triple end point occurred in 17.8% of women versus 13.3% of men. Reperfusion therapy was utilized in 38.2% of women versus 47.3% in men. However, age > 75 years, delayed presentation, high systolic blood pressure (> 100) and region (South Africa), were significant, independent predictors of not receiving reperfusion therapy. Significant predictors of the triple end point included not receiving reperfusion therapy, age > 60 years, and higher Killip class. Predictors of death included age > 60 years, low systolic blood pressure, higher Killip class, high heart rate, delayed presentation, and region (South Africa and South America).

CONCLUSION

Female gender was not an independent predictor of outcome or underutilization of reperfusion therapy. Factors more common in female STEMI patients (advanced age and delayed presentation) were associated with not receiving reperfusion therapy and adverse outcome. Increased awareness is needed to reduce delayed presentation after symptom onset, especially among women. Abbreviated abstract. In this analysis of 2741 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients in the TETAMI trial and registry, a trend was observed for women being less likely to receive reperfusion therapy and more likely to have an adverse outcome than men. This was related to factors more common in female patients (advanced age and delayed presentation), and showed that an increased awareness is needed to reduce delayed presentation after symptom onset, especially among women.

Variable inhibition of high-shear-induced platelet plug formation by eptifibatide and tirofiban under conditions of platelet activation and high von Willebrand release: a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa antagonists have become a mainstay for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. Yet, they have rarely been evaluated under relevant pathophysiologic conditions, for example, high shear rates in the presence of physiologic calcium concentrations. We compared the efficacy of eptifibatide and tirofiban versus placebo on high shear-induced platelet plug formation in a model in which healthy subjects exhibit von Willebrand factor concentrations and platelet activation comparable to patients with acute coronary syndromes.

METHODS

Thirty male volunteers received 2 ng/kg endotoxin and standard doses of eptifibatide, tirofiban, or placebo over a period of 5 hours in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, double-dummy parallel-group trial. Platelet inhibition was measured with the Platelet Function Analyzer-100 (PFA-100) and the Ultegra method.

RESULTS

Although bolus infusion of both GPIIb/IIIa antagonists inhibited high shear-induced platelet plug formation, continuous infusion of eptifibatide prolonged closure times more effectively than did tirofiban (P <.008). Interestingly, tirofiban had only placebo-like effects on platelet plug formation after 2 hours. However, when additional drug was exogenously added, closure time values were maximally prolonged in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard doses, particularly of tirofiban, have limited impact on high shear-induced platelet plug formation at physiologic Ca(2+) concentrations.

Prospective Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes After Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients Who Are Ineligible for Reperfusion Therapy: Preliminary Results From the TETAMI Registry and Randomized Trial

Background— Treatment with lytics or primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) reduces the mortality rate of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presenting within 12 hours. Patients presenting >12 hours are generally considered to be ineligible for reperfusion therapy, and there are currently no specific treatment recommendations for this subgroup.

Methods— All patients with STEMI <24 hours were included in the Treatment with Enoxaparin and Tirofiban in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TETAMI) randomized trial or registry. Those patients who were ineligible for acute reperfusion, had no cardiogenic shock, and were not planned for revascularization within 48 hours were randomized to 1 of 4 antithrombotic regimens involving enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH), in combination with tirofiban or placebo for 2 to 8 days. A concurrent registry tracked STEMI patients coming in within <12 hours, and who underwent reperfusion. This registry also tracked the remaining STEMI patients who neither received reperfusion nor were enrolled in the TETAMI randomized trial. The demographics and clinical outcomes of all three groups (received reperfusion therapy, too late for reperfusion and enrolled in the randomized trial, neither received reperfusion therapy nor were enrolled in the randomized trial) were prospectively tracked.

Results and Conclusion— There were 2,737 patients who presented with STEMI or a new left branch bundle block (LBBB), of which 1,654 (60%) presented ≤12 hours. There were 1,196 (72%) of 1,654 patients who received reperfusion therapy. There were 458 (28%) of the 1,654 patients deemed “ineligible” for reperfusion, mostly because of a contraindication to lytics or for being “too old.” In contrast, 1,083 (40%) of 2,737 patients presented >12 hours. Apart from 34 of these patients who had a stuttering infarction and were referred for reperfusion, the remaining patients did not receive reperfusion therapy.

Registry patients who received reperfusion therapy, compared with TETAMI randomized patients (all of whom received antithrombotic therapy) and registry patients who did not receive reperfusion, were younger (61 years versus 63 years and 67 years), were more likely to be male (78% versus 73% and 63%), and had persistent ST-segment elevation as opposed to LBBB or Q waves. Registry patients who received reperfusion therapy had better clinical outcomes, even after adjusting for admission Killip class, compared with TETAMI randomized patients and registry patients who did not receive reperfusion therapy. TETAMI randomized patients had better outcomes than registry patients who did not receive reperfusion therapy.

The major obstacle to expanding the delivery of reperfusion therapy to patients with STEMI is the large fraction of patients who present too late for reperfusion therapy. Examination of prospectively gathered data on STEMI patients who are ineligible for reperfusion may help optimize their treatment.

The safety and efficacy of subcutaneous enoxaparin versus intravenous unfractionated heparin and tirofiban versus placebo in the treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients ineligible for reperfusion (TETAMI)

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin Versus Intravenous Unfractionated Heparin and Tirofiban Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Ineligible for Reperfusion (TETAMI) study were to demonstrate that enoxaparin was superior to unfractionated heparin (UFH) and that tirofiban was better than placebo in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who do not receive timely reperfusion.

BACKGROUND

An optimal treatment strategy has not been identified for the many STEMI patients ineligible for acute reperfusion.

METHODS

A total of 1224 patients were enrolled in 91 centers in 14 countries between July 1999 and July 2002. Patients with STEMI ineligible for reperfusion were randomized to enoxaparin, enoxaparin plus tirofiban, UFH, or UFH plus tirofiban. All patients received oral aspirin. The primary efficacy end point was the 30-day combined incidence of death, reinfarction, or recurrent angina; the primary analysis was the comparison of the pooled enoxaparin and UFH groups.

RESULTS

The incidence of the primary efficacy end point was 15.7% enoxaparin versus 17.3% for UFH (odds ratio 0.89 [95% confidence interval CI = 0.66 to 1.21]) and 16.6% for tirofiban versus 16.4% for placebo (odds ratio 1.02 [95% CI 0.75 to 1.38]). The Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major hemorrhage rate was 1.5% for enoxaparin versus 1.3% for UFH (odds ratio 1.16 [95% CI 0.44 to 3.02]) and 1.8% versus 1% for tirofiban versus placebo (odds ratio 1.82 [95% CI 0.67 to 4.95]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not show that enoxaparin significantly reduced the 30-day incidence of death, reinfarction, and recurrent angina compared with UFH in non-reperfused STEMI patients. However, enoxaparin appears to have a similar safety and efficacy profile to UFH and may be an alternative treatment. Additional therapy with tirofiban did not appear beneficial.

The role of low-molecular-weight heparin in the management of acute coronary syndromes

A substantial number of clinical studies have consistently demonstrated that low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) compounds are effective and safe alternative anticoagulants to unfractionated heparins (UFHs). They have been found to improve clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes and to provide a more predictable therapeutic response, longer and more stable anticoagulation, and a lower incidence of UFH-induced thrombocytopenia. Of the several LMWH agents that have been studied in large clinical trials, including enoxaparin, dalteparin, and nadroparin, not all have shown better efficacy than UFH. Enoxaparin is the only LMWH compound to have demonstrated sustained clinical and economic benefits in comparison with UFH in the management of unstable angina/ non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Also, LMWH appears to be a reliable and effective antithrombotic treatment as adjunctive therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical trials with enoxaparin indicate that LMWH is effective and safe in this indication, with or without the addition of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. The efficacy demonstrated by enoxaparin in improving clinical outcomes in unstable angina/NSTEMI patients has led to investigations of its role in the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Initial results are very encouraging, and they indicate that enoxaparin may potentially substitute for UFH as adjunctive therapy in fibrin-specific thrombolytic regimens and improve coronary reperfusion rates in streptokinase-based regimens.

Promise of combined low-molecular-weight heparin and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition: results from Platelet IIb/IIIa Antagonist for the Reduction of Acute coronary syndrome events in a Global Organization Network B (PARAGON B)

BACKGROUND

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has a more predictable anticoagulant effect than unfractionated heparin (UFH), is easier to administer, and does not require monitoring. Minimal data are available on LMWH combined with platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

METHODS

In the Platelet IIb/IIIa Antagonist for the Reduction of Acute Coronary Syndrome Events in a Global Organization Network B (PARAGON B) trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome were randomized to receive the IIb/IIIa inhibitor lamifiban or a placebo. To rigorously explore the potential benefits of LWMH and GP IIb/IIIa inhibition, we analyzed the rates of ischemic complications and safety outcomes in PARAGON B.

RESULTS

Approximately one fifth of the patients received LMWH (805 vs 4395 UFH). For the overall cohort, the incidence of death/myocardial infarction (MI)/severe recurrent ischemia (SRI) was 12.2%, and this composite end point was numerically lowest in the lamifiban with LMWH group (10.2%). Similarly, the incidence of death/MI was 11.0% for the entire cohort and lowest in the lamifiban and LMWH group (9.0%). The lower event rate for patients taking LMWH in the lamifiban group was sustained at 6 months, with a lower revascularization rate (51.5% vs 42.8%) and a lower composite of death/MI (13.8% vs 11.9%). Bleeding was comparable in the 2 heparin groups (1.4% with UFH vs 0.9% with LMWH). The propensity adjusted odds ratio for 30-day revascularization was significantly lower with LMWH (odds ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.79, P <.001). There were no significant differences in death/MI/SRI at 30 days (P =.465), death/MI at 30 days (P =.264), and stroke at 30 days with the type of heparin use (P =.201) after propensity risk adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

In the PARAGON B trial, use of LMWH in conjunction with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor was safe and associated with a lower revascularization rate. These findings support the rationale and promise for combining GP IIb/IIIa blockers and LMWH for future management of acute coronary syndrome.

Low-molecular-weight heparin therapy for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and during percutaneous coronary intervention: an expert consensus

BACKGROUND

Therapy with either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists is of benefit to patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). However, algorithms that define how LMWH may be used in patients, proceeding from medical management to intervention and in conjunction with GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, are lacking. The objectives of this task force were to formulate recommendations based on all available data for the use of LMWH, both with and without GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists, and to provide seamless integration of care during the transition from medical to interventional management.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An international task force of 14 cardiologists with extensive experience in clinical trials was convened in New York in February 2001 to address issues related to the use of LMWH in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS. Evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, and other reports was discussed, and consensus recommendations were formulated.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial evidence exists that patients receiving LMWH for an ACS can safely undergo cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. Concerns regarding the transition of these patients from the medical service to the cardiac catheterization laboratory should therefore not impede the upstream use of LMWH. Furthermore, LMWH and GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists can be used safely in combination, with no apparent increase in the risk of major bleeding. Consensus algorithms for therapy are presented.

Combination of low molecular weight heparins with antiplatelet agents in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: an update

This article reviews the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and antiplatelet agents in the treatment of unstable angina and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), which together account for 1 million hospitalisations annually in the US alone. Mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) in these conditions is currently approximately 8 to 16% at 1 month, and there is a need to optimise treatment further. Since their introduction, LMWHs have been shown to be successful and well tolerated in the treatment of unstable angina and NSTEMI, but differences have been seen in their efficacy compared with the parent compound, unfractionated heparin (UFH). A meta-analysis of all LMWHs, grouped, versus UFH showed equivalent efficacy and safety. The LMWHs dalteparin sodium and nadroparin calcium have independently been shown to be as effective as UFH. However, enoxaparin sodium has been shown to have greater clinical efficacy than UFH in patients with unstable angina (UA)/NSTEMI. One area of new research is patients with UA/NSTEMI who later undergo percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), and early data suggest enoxaparin can be safely used as an anticoagulant instead of UFH in these patients. There is a wealth of data for glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists (abciximab, eptifibatide, lamifiban, and tirofiban), although some are conflicting. Recent meta-analyses suggest that some benefit is conferred by using these compounds, particularly in patients who undergo PCI. Recent trials have focussed on combining GP IIb/IIIa antagonists with LMWH, and although data is still scant, the ACUTE (Anti-thrombotic Combination Using Tirofiban and Enoxaparin) and ACUTE II studies indicate the safety and potential clinical benefit of combining enoxaparin with tirofiban in patients with UA/NSTEMI not undergoing PCI, compared with UFH and tirofiban. The NICE (National Investigators Collaborating on Enoxaparin) 4 study collected data on the combination of enoxaparin and abciximab in patients undergoing PCI, and both safety and efficacy data compared well with historical data collected on the use of UFH with abciximab. The more recent NICE 3 study extended this finding to the combination of enoxaparin with abciximab, tirofiban or eptifibatide. The safety of two doses of dalteparin and abciximab had also been investigated, with the higher dose the efficacious, and also with safety, in patients undergoing PCI. In addition, a GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes) IV substudy found that dalteparin had equivalent safety to UFH when co-administered with abciximab in patients not undergoing PCI. The NICE 3 and 4 trials were not randomised comparisons, and as such there results must be interpreted with caution. Recently, the CRUISE (Coronary Revascularisation Utilizing Integrelin [eptifibatide] and Single-bolus Enoxaparin) and INTERACT (Integrelin and Enoxaparin randomised assessment of Acute Coronary Syndromes Treatment) studies have provided evidence for both the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin combined with eptifibatide in non-ST elevation patients with acute coronary syndromes. A further study (SYNERGY [Superior Yield of the New strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization and GlYcoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors]) will investigate the efficacy of the combination of enoxaparin with abciximab versus that of UFH and abciximab in a large cohort of 8000 patients. The use of GP IIb/IIIa agents and LMWH in patients with UA/STEMI has led to their use in those with ST-elevation MI, and studies indicate LMWH is efficacious and can be used safely as an adjunct to thrombolysis. New studies will investigate the use of these agents in patients with STEMI not undergoing thrombolysis and we await the results of these studies.

The role of low-molecular-weight heparin in cardiovascular diseases

Unfractionated heparin continues to have important limitations in clinical practice. It has an inconsistent anticoagulant effect, needs frequent monitoring, and is inactivated by several plasma proteins. Low-molecular-weight heparins have a more predictable anticoagulant effect than unfractionated heparin, are easier to administer, and may not require monitoring. The anticoagulation effect of low-molecular-weight heparins is caused by a combination of inhibition of thrombin generation and inhibition of thrombin activity. Low-molecular-weight heparins have now been evaluated for a number of cardiovascular conditions and have been found to be safe and effective. We review and summarize the existing data regarding the use of low-molecular-weight heparins in cardiovascular diseases, including venous thromboembolism, percutaneous coronary interventions, and acute coronary syndromes such as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

[2002 Update of the Guidelines of the Spanish Society of Cardiology for Unstable Angina/Without ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction]

Since the Spanish Society of Cardiology Clinical Practice Guidelines on Unstable Angina/Non-Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction were released in 1999, the conclusions of several studies that have been published make it advisable to update current clinical recommendations. The main findings are related to the developing role of Chest Pain Units in the management and early risk stratification of acute coronary syndromes in the emergency department; new information concerning the efficacy of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, clopidogrel and low-molecular-weight heparins in the pharmacological treatment of acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation; and the role of early invasive strategy in improving the prognosis of these patients. The published evidence is reviewed and the corresponding clinical recommendations for the management of acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation are updated.

Benefits of late reperfusion in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction

Early reperfusion of the infarct-related coronary artery is very much effective to treat the patients with acute myocardial infraction. However, there are many clinical as well as experimental evidences supporting the efficacy of late reperfusion therapy. In this article, effects of late reperfusion on mortality, left ventricular function, left ventricular dilatation and remodeling, or electrical stability were summarized. Also, the possible mechanisms for benefits of late reperfusion were discussed and the special role of epicardial rim bring about those benefits was emphasized.

The role of low-molecular-weight heparin in the management of acute coronary syndromes

Optimized medical treatment for the non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) should consist of a combined antithrombotic/anti-anginal regimen. Standard antithrombotic treatment is currently unfractionated heparin and aspirin, and in high-risk patients glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. However, low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have practical and clinical advantages over UFH and can be considered an effective alternative in the medical treatment of ACS and in patients proceeding to surgical interventions. Benefits include a more predictable and stable therapeutic response, no need for coagulation monitoring and a reduced incidence heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. In this context, the LMWH enoxaparin has demonstrated sustained clinical and economic benefits compared with UFH, with no increase in major bleeding complications. In addition, recently published studies indicate that LMWHs can improve reperfusion of the arteries and reduce reocclusion when used as adjunctive anticoagulant therapy in patients with ST segment elevation (STE) ACS undergoing thrombolysis with fibrin-specific agents or streptokinase.