ANTICOAGULANT SUPPORT OF PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTIONS WITH BIVALIRUDIN OR UNFRACTIONATED HEPARIN AT VARIOUS VASCULAR ACCESSES

Purpose. Nowadays it is proved that the use of bivalirudin instead of unfractionated heparin (UFH) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) allows to reduce the number of bleeding complications. But at the same time there is no conclusive data on the clinical advantage of the use of bivalirudin over UFH during planned PCI. The purpose of the work was a comparison of shortterm and longterm results of PCI in subjects with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) associated with the infusion of bivalirudin and heparin, depending on the type of vascular access (transradial and transfemoral).

Materials and methods. The study included 127 stable CAD subjects who underwent a planned PCI. By the method of simple randomization the subjects were divided into two groups: «Bivalirudin + transfemoral access» group (n=65) – bivalirudin was used as an anticoagulant during the intervention by femoral access and «Heparin + transradial access» group (n=62). The groups were comparable on major clinical and demographic indicators and risk factors for bleeding complications (14±7 vs. 13±6 scores on «Mehran Score», p=0,451). Endpoints were death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeated myocardial revascularization (RMR), episodes of bleeding during hospitalization and the total number of adverse cardiovascular events during hospitalization and in 1 year after randomization.

Results. After 30 days of observation, the group «bivalirudin» (transfemoral access, n=65) and the group «UFH» (transradial access, n=62) did not differ in the number of fatal outcomes (no cases in both groups), the frequency of RMR (1,5% vs 1,6%, correspondingly, p=0,998), MI (3,1% vs. 1,6%, correspondingly, p=0,899), bleeding episodes during the hospital stay (4,6%, vs. 3,2%, correspondingly, p=0,899). The total number of cardiovascular complications was 4,6% and 3,2%, correspondingly, p=0,675. The results of one year follow-up in both groups also did not differ in the number of fatal outcomes (0% vs. 1,6%, correspondingly, p=0,946), MI (7,7% vs. 6,5%, correspondingly, p=0,656), RMR (7,7% vs. 4,8%, correspondingly, p=0,785), MACE (15,3% vs. 11,3%, correspondingly, p=0,677).

Conclusion. Short-term and long-term results of planned PCI performed by transradial access with UFH anticoagulant support and PCI performed by transfemoral access ) associated with administration of bivalirudin are comparable both in the number of postoperative bleeding complications and in the number of adverse cardiovascular events.

1. Совет экспертов. Текущая позиция по бивалирудину. Российский кардиологический журнал. 2015; 2 (118): 100– 102 http://dx.doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2015-02-100-102. Expert consensus. The current position on bivalirudin. Russ. J. Cardiol. 2015; 2 (118): 100–102. [In Russ].

2. Sumeet S., Richard G. B., Anita Y. C., Gage B. F., Rao S. V., Newby L. K. et al. Baseline Risk of Major Bleeding in Non–STSegment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction The CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) Bleeding Score. Circulation. 2009; 119: 1873–1882.

3. Mehran R., Pocock S., Nikolsky E., Clayton T., Dangas G. D., Kirtane A. J. et al. A Risk Score to Predict Bleeding in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010; 55: 2556–2566.

4. Stone G. W., Witzenbichler B., Guagliumi G., Peruga J. Z., Brodie B. R., Dudek D. et al. Bivalirudin during Primary PCI in Acute Myocardial Infarction. New Engl. J. Med. 2008; 358: 2218–2230. 5. Kastrati A., Neumann F.-J., Mehilli J., Byrne R. A., Iijima R., Büttner H. J. et al. Bivalirudin versus Unfractionated Heparin during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008; 359: 688–696.

5. Stone G. W., Witzenbichler B., Guagliumi G., Peruga J. Z., Brodie B. R., Dudek D. et al. HORIZONS-AMI Trial Investigators. Bivalirudin during primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008; 358: 2218–2230.

6. Shahzad A., Kemp I., Mars C., Wilson K., Roome C., Cooper R. et al. On behalf of the HEAT-PPCI trial investigators. Unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (HEAT-PPCI): an open-label, single centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014; 7: 2541–2619.

7. Zeymer U., van’t Hof A., Adgey J., Nibbe L., Clemmensen P., Cavalliniet C. et al. Bivalirudin is superior to heparins alone with bailout GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction transported emergently for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a pre-specified analysis from the EUROMAX trial. Eur. Heart J. 2014; 5: 2457–2602.

8. Wijns W., Kolh P., Danchin N., Di Mario C., Falk V., Folliguet T. et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. Heart J. 2010; 31(20): 2501–2555.

9. Kolh P., Windecker S., Alfonso F., Collet J. Ph., Cremer J., Falk V. et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur. J. Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 46(4): 517–592.

10. Lincoff A. M., Bittl J. A., Harrington R. A., Feit F., Kleiman N. S., Jackman J. D. et al. Bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary intervention: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2003; 289: 853–863.

11. Kastrati A., Neumann F. J., Mehilli J., Byrne R. A., Iijima R., Büttner H. J. et al. ISAR-REACT 3 Trial Investigators. Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008; 359: 688–696.

12. Patti G., Pasceri V., D’Antonio L. Comparison of safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (from the Anti-Thrombotic Strategy for Reduction of Myocardial Damage During Angioplasty-Bivalirudin vs Heparin study). Am. J .Cardiol. 2012; 110(4): 478–84.

13. Jolly S. S., Yusuf S., Cairns J., Niemelä K., Xavier D., Widimsky P. et al. Radial vs. femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011; 377(9775): 1409–1420.

14. Hamon M., Pristipino C., Di Mario C., Nolan J., Ludwig J., Tubaro M. et al. Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology. Eurointerventions. 2013; 8: 1242–1251.

15. Campeau L. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading of angina pectoris revisited 30 years later. Can. J. Сardiol. 2002; 18: 371–379.

16. Mehran R., Rao S. V., Bhatt D. L., Gibson C. M., Caixeta A., Eikelboom J. et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: A consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation. 2011; 123: 2736–2747.

17. Jolly S. S., Amlani S., Hamon M., Yusuf S. Mehta Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am. Heart J. 2009; 157: 132–140.