Search

Despite implementation of new interventional techniques and therapeutic advances, elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) continue to be susceptible to in-hospital bleeding compared with younger ones. Thus, we investigated the incidence of in-hospital bleeding events and associated risk factors in elderly (≥ 75°years) ACS patients. We also wanted to define the bleeding sites, characteristics, and associated mortality. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification type 2, 3, or 5 was used to define bleeding events. Overall, 539 patients were included in the study (mean age: 82.5 ± 4.8°years; 282 (52.3%) females). Of these patients, 69 (12.8%) developed in-hospital bleeding. Factors that were independently related with in-hospital bleeding were age (odds ratio (OR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.011.14, P =.01), acute kidney injury (OR: 3.66; 95% CI: 2.016.69; P <.01), tirofiban (OR: 4.43; 95% CI: 1.7810.99; P <.01), and ticagrelor (OR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.013.73; P =.04) administration. The urinary tract was the most frequent bleeding site, followed by femoral arteries. In conclusion, ticagrelor and tirofiban should be used with caution in elderly ACS patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence for the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is from the era of either limited utilization of P2Y12 inhibitors or prior the introduction of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors. This leads to divergent opinions regarding the role of these agents in contemporary practice. This study sought the opinion of cardiovascular clinical pharmacists regarding the role of GPIs in the modern of ACS management. A 13-question survey was created and distributed from June 2018 to July 2018 via the American College of Clinical Pharmacy's Cardiology Practice and Research Network e-mail listserv. The survey consisted of questions regarding the ideal use of GPIs in ACS management, preferred agent selection, and rational for selection. All results were analyzed with descriptive statistics. There were a total 69 responses of 1175 (response rate 5.9%). The majority felt there was still a role for GPI in accordance to the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (65.2%), with eptifibatide being preferred (55.1%). For non-ST-segment myocardial infraction (NSTEMI), only 49.3% felt role of GPI was in line with the ACC/AHA guidelines, but a notable number of respondents felt GPIs were only indicated in NSTEMI patients for bailout or thrombotic complications (18.8%). A majority (56.5%) felt GPIs could be used as an alternative for cangrelor when bridging. The decision to use one agent over another were efficacy data, cost, and pharmacokinetic profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A variety of antithrombotic drugs are used during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). We aimed to investigate the practicability of the use of bivalirudin and GPIs in patients receiving PCI. We searched 7 of 629 relevant records from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials. There were no significant differences in the rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between bivalirudin plus GPI and heparin (all P >.05). Bivalirudin plus planned GPI was similar to bivalirudin monotherapy in terms of the risk of MACE (risk ratio [RR] = 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] =.91 − 1.27; P =.55). Bivalirudin plus provisional GPI was associated with lower bleeding risk (RR =.57; 95% CI =.47 −.69; P <.01) compared to using heparin plus GPI. Compared to bivalirudin alone, bivalirudin plus planned GPI evidently increased bleeding risk (RR = 2.20; 95% CI = 1.73 − 2.79; P <.01). Patients receiving bivalirudin or heparin therapy had semblable efficacy endpoints, but those receiving bivalirudin had a significantly lower bleeding risk. For high-risk bleeding patients, bivalirudin plus provisional GPI can have a better antithrombotic effect than heparin, without increasing the bleeding risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin (Biv) versus heparin (Hep) with or without similar usage rate of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The PubMed and EMbase were searched. Randomized trials comparing Biv versus Hep were eligible for inclusion. With imbalanced GPI use, Biv had significantly lower major bleeding (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.83) without difference in mortality (pooled RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.80-1.14). With comparable GPI use, no significant difference was observed in major bleeding (pooled RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10) and mortality (pooled RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.85-1.50). With no GPI use, Biv was associated with numerically higher mortality (pooled RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.83-1.65) without significant difference in major bleeding (pooled RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02). In conclusion, when comparing different anticoagulants during PCI, the effect of GPIs should not be underestimated. Heparin as such was found noninferior to Biv. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antiplatelet therapy is integral to the acute and long-term management of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) and for minimizing the thrombotic complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This article reviews the most commonly used antiplatelet agents in ACS therapy—aspirin, adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-receptor blockers, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. More recent data are also reviewed on novel ADP-receptor blockers and thrombin inhibitors before addressing issues of adherence to antiplatelet regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article presents a study on insights from randomized clinical trials on early administration of small-molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitors (smGPIs) before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Current guidelines recommend abciximab (ReoPro) but tirofiban (aggrastat) and eptifibatide (integrilin) are more commonly used in clinical practice. Results show that early administration of smGPIs works as well as abciximab in the setting of PPCI for STEMI.