Association of Parenteral Anticoagulation Therapy With Outcomes in Chinese Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome | Acute Coronary Syndromes | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.238.77. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Cohen  M, Adams  PC, Parry  G,  et al; Antithrombotic Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes Research Group.  Combination antithrombotic therapy in unstable rest angina and non–Q-wave infarction in nonprior aspirin users: primary end points analysis from the ATACS trial.  Circulation. 1994;89(1):81-88. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.89.1.81PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Gurfinkel  EP, Manos  EJ, Mejaíl  RI,  et al.  Low molecular weight heparin versus regular heparin or aspirin in the treatment of unstable angina and silent ischemia.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26(2):313-318. doi:10.1016/0735-1097(95)80001-WPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Fragmin during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC) study group. Low–molecular-weight heparin during instability in coronary artery disease.  Lancet. 1996;347(9001):561-568. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91270-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Yusuf  S, Mehta  SR, Chrolavicius  S,  et al.  Comparison of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes.  N Engl J Med. 2006;354(14):1464-1476. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa055443PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Levine  GN, Bates  ER, Blankenship  JC,  et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.  Circulation. 2011;124(23):e574-e651. PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Han  Y, Guo  J, Zheng  Y,  et al; BRIGHT Investigators.  Bivalirudin vs heparin with or without tirofiban during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction: the BRIGHT randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2015;313(13):1336-1346. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.2323PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Mehran  R, Rao  SV, Bhatt  DL,  et al.  Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium.  Circulation. 2011;123(23):2736-2747. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.009449PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Cannon  CP, Brindis  RG, Chaitman  BR,  et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA key data elements and definitions for measuring the clinical management and outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes and coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical data standards (writing committee to develop acute coronary syndromes and coronary artery disease clinical data standards).  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(9):992-1025. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.10.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Li  YJ, Rha  SW, Chen  KY,  et al; Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Investigators.  Low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in patients with acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.  J Cardiol. 2012;59(1):22-29. doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2011.09.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Granger  CB, Goldberg  RJ, Dabbous  O,  et al; Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Investigators.  Predictors of hospital mortality in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events.  Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(19):2345-2353. doi:10.1001/archinte.163.19.2345PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Subherwal  S, Bach  RG, Chen  AY,  et al.  Baseline risk of major bleeding in non-ST-segment-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(14):1873-1882. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.828541PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Cohen  M, Demers  C, Gurfinkel  EP,  et al; Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non–Q-Wave Coronary Events Study Group.  A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease.  N Engl J Med. 1997;337(7):447-452. doi:10.1056/NEJM199708143370702PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Ferguson  JJ, Califf  RM, Antman  EM,  et al; SYNERGY Trial Investigators.  Enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an intended early invasive strategy: primary results of the SYNERGY randomized trial.  JAMA. 2004;292(1):45-54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Yang  Q, Wang  Y, Liu  J,  et al; CCC-ACS Investigators.  Invasive management strategies and antithrombotic treatments in patients with non–ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome in China: findings from the Improving CCC Project (Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China).  Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(6):e004750. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004750PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Cannon  CP, Weintraub  WS, Demopoulos  LA,  et al; TACTICS (Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy With an Invasive or Conservative Strategy)—Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 18 Investigators.  Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban.  N Engl J Med. 2001;344(25):1879-1887. doi:10.1056/NEJM200106213442501PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Mehta  SR, Granger  CB, Boden  WE,  et al; TIMACS Investigators.  Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes.  N Engl J Med. 2009;360(21):2165-2175. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0807986PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Stefanini  GG, Holmes  DR  Jr.  Drug-eluting coronary-artery stents.  N Engl J Med. 2013;368(3):254-265. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1210816PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Wallentin  L, Lindhagen  L, Ärnström  E,  et al; FRISC-II study group.  Early invasive versus non-invasive treatment in patients with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (FRISC-II): 15 year follow-up of a prospective, randomised, multicentre study.  Lancet. 2016;388(10054):1903-1911. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31276-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Andrade-Castellanos  CA, Colunga-Lozano  LE, Delgado-Figueroa  N, Magee  K.  Heparin versus placebo for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD003462.PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Théroux  P, Ouimet  H, McCans  J,  et al.  Aspirin, heparin, or both to treat acute unstable angina.  N Engl J Med. 1988;319(17):1105-1111. doi:10.1056/NEJM198810273191701PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Cohen  M, Adams  PC, Hawkins  L, Bach  M, Fuster  V.  Usefulness of antithrombotic therapy in resting angina pectoris or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction in preventing death and myocardial infarction (a pilot study from the Antithrombotic Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes Study Group).  Am J Cardiol. 1990;66(19):1287-1292. doi:10.1016/0002-9149(90)91155-YPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
The RISC Group.  Risk of myocardial infarction and death during treatment with low dose aspirin and intravenous heparin in men with unstable coronary artery disease.  Lancet. 1990;336(8719):827-830. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)92336-GPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Holdright  D, Patel  D, Cunningham  D,  et al.  Comparison of the effect of heparin and aspirin versus aspirin alone on transient myocardial ischemia and in-hospital prognosis in patients with unstable angina.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;24(1):39-45. doi:10.1016/0735-1097(94)90539-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Stone  GW, McLaurin  BT, Cox  DA,  et al; ACUITY Investigators.  Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes.  N Engl J Med. 2006;355(21):2203-2216. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062437PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Amsterdam  EA, Wenger  NK, Brindis  RG,  et al.  2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(24):e139-e228. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Roffi  M, Patrono  C, Collet  JP,  et al; ESC Scientific Document Group.  2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting Without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).  Eur Heart J. 2016;37(3):267-315. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Yusuf  S, Zhao  F, Mehta  SR, Chrolavicius  S, Tognoni  G, Fox  KK; Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events Trial Investigators.  Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation.  N Engl J Med. 2001;345(7):494-502. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa010746PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Wallentin  L, Becker  RC, Budaj  A,  et al; PLATO Investigators.  Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(11):1045-1057. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0904327PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Fragmin Fast Revascularisation During Instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC II) Investigators.  Long-term low-molecular-mass heparin in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study.  Lancet. 1999;354(9180):701-707. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)07350-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Mehta  SR, Granger  CB, Eikelboom  JW,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the OASIS-5 trial.  J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(18):1742-1751. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.042PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Stone  GW, Ware  JH, Bertrand  ME,  et al; ACUITY Investigators.  Antithrombotic strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing early invasive management: one-year results from the ACUITY trial.  JAMA. 2007;298(21):2497-2506. doi:10.1001/jama.298.21.2497PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    December 28, 2018

    Association of Parenteral Anticoagulation Therapy With Outcomes in Chinese Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China
    • 2Department of Cardiology, The Second People’s Hospital of Nanhai District, Guangdong General Hospital’s Nanhai Hospital, Foshan, China
    • 3Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
    • 4Department of Cardiology, Fujian Provincial Clinical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fujian Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, Fuzhou, China
    • 5Department of Cardiology, The Second People’s Hospital of Shenzhen, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
    • 6Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Zhuhai People’s Hospital, Zhuhai, China
    • 7Department of Cardiology, Shunde Hospital, Southern Medical University, Foshan, China.
    JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(2):186-195. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5953
    Key Points

    Question  Is parenteral anticoagulation therapy beneficial for patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?

    Findings  In this multicenter cohort study that included 6804 consecutive patients from 5 centers in China, parenteral anticoagulation therapy was not associated with lower all-cause death or myocardial infarction but was significantly associated with a higher risk of major bleeding.

    Meaning  The findings suggest that the role of parenteral anticoagulation therapy should be reevaluated in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome.

    Abstract

    Importance  The association of parenteral anticoagulation therapy with improved outcomes in patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome was previously established. This benefit has not been evaluated in the era of dual antiplatelet therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention.

    Objective  To evaluate the association between parenteral anticoagulation therapy and clinical outcomes in patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This cohort study included 8197 adults who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014, at 5 medical centers in China. Patients receiving parenteral anticoagulation therapy only after percutaneous coronary intervention were excluded.

    Exposures  Parenteral anticoagulation therapy.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause death and in-hospital major bleeding as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition (grades 3-5).

    Results  Of 6804 patients who met the final criteria, 5104 (75.0%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 64.2 (10.4) years. The incidence of in-hospital death was not significantly different between the patients who received and did not receive parenteral anticoagulation therapy (0.3% vs 0.1%; P = .13) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.38-4.27; P = .70). A similar result was found for myocardial infarction (0.3% vs 0.3%; P = .82) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.29-2.07; P = .61). In-hospital major bleeding was more frequent in the parenteral anticoagulation group (2.5% vs 1.0%; P < .001) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.24-3.03; P = .004). At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 2.96 years (1.93-4.46 years), all-cause death was not significantly different between the 2 groups (adjusted hazards ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.07; P = .19), but the incidence of major bleeding was higher in the parenteral anticoagulation group (adjusted hazards ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.02; P = .04). The propensity score analysis confirmed these primary analyses.

    Conclusions and Relevance  In the patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, parenteral anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause death or myocardial infarction but was significantly associated with a higher risk of major bleeding. These findings raise important safety questions about the current practice of routine parenteral anticoagulation therapy while we await randomized trials of this practice.

    ×