File(s) not publicly available
Comparison of bivalirudin with heparin versus abciximab with heparin for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in “Real World” practice
journal contributionposted on 2023-07-26, 13:29 authored by Refai Showkathali, John R. Davies, Michael Parker, Wasing Taggu, Kare H. Tang, Gerald J. Clesham, Reto A. Gamma, Jeremy W. Sayer, Rajesh K. Aggarwal, Paul A. Kelly
Objective: We aimed to carry out a “real world” comparison of bivalirudin plus unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus abciximab plus UFH in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods: We included patients who had abciximab or bivalirudin during their PPCI in our unit between Sept 2009 and Nov 2011. Results: The study included 516 and 484 patients in the bivalirudin and abciximab group respectively. There were more women in the bivalirudin group (29% vs 20%, p 0.001), while cardiogenic shock (6.4% vs 10.1%, p 0.04) and thrombectomy device use (76.6% vs 82%, p 0.04) were lower in the bivalirudin group. The primary composite end point of 30-day mortality, 30-day definite stent thrombosis or non-CABG major bleeding was similar between the bivalirudin and abciximab groups (7.8% vs 9.5%, OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.2, p 0.4). There was also no difference in in-hospital mortality (4.1% vs 4.3%, p 0.9), 30-day mortality (5.2% vs 6.4%, p 0.5), 1-year mortality (9.1% vs 9.9%, p 0.7), 30-day stent thrombosis (1% vs 0.4%, p 0.5) and non-CABG bleeding (2.7 vs 3.7%, p 0.4) between the bivalirudin and abciximab group respectively. On Cox proportional hazard analysis after adjusting for all the co-variates, the use of bivalirudin was not a predictor of 30-day mortality (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.7–1.9, p 0.7). Conclusion: In this “real-world” observational study, there was no significant difference in the clinical outcome of PPCI for patients who had abciximab or bivalirudin after initial pre-treatment with UFH.
Publication titleCardiovascular Revascularization Medicine