Cargando…

Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI. OBJECTIVES: We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Faour, Amir, Collins, Nicholas, Williams, Trent, Khan, Arshad, Juergens, Craig P., Lo, Sidney, Walters, Darren L., Chew, Derek P., French, John K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8547635/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34699549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259148
_version_ 1784590414955675648
author Faour, Amir
Collins, Nicholas
Williams, Trent
Khan, Arshad
Juergens, Craig P.
Lo, Sidney
Walters, Darren L.
Chew, Derek P.
French, John K.
author_facet Faour, Amir
Collins, Nicholas
Williams, Trent
Khan, Arshad
Juergens, Craig P.
Lo, Sidney
Walters, Darren L.
Chew, Derek P.
French, John K.
author_sort Faour, Amir
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI. OBJECTIVES: We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in patients undergoing rescue PCI. METHODS: Between 2010–2015, we randomly assigned 83 patients undergoing rescue PCI to bivalirudin (n = 42) or heparin ± GPIs (n = 41). The primary safety endpoint was any ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) bleeding at 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was infarct size measured by peak troponin levels as a multiple of the local upper reference limit (Tn/URL). Secondary endpoints included periprocedural change in haemoglobin adjusted for red cells transfused, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding, ST-segment recovery and infarct size determined by the Selvester QRS score. RESULTS: The trial was terminated due to slow recruitment and futility after an interim analysis of 83 patients. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 6 (14%) patients in the bivalirudin group (4.8% GPIs) and 3 (7.3%) in the heparin ± GPIs group (54% GPIs) (risk ratio, 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52–7.3, P = 0.48). Infarct size was similar between the two groups (mean Tn/URL, 730 [±675] for bivalirudin, versus 984 [±1585] for heparin ± GPIs, difference, 254, 95% CI, -283-794, P = 0.86). There was a smaller decrease in the periprocedural haemoglobin level with bivalirudin than heparin ± GPIs (-7.5% [±15] versus -14% [±17], difference, -6.5%, 95% CI, -0.83–14, P = 0.0067). The rate of complete (≥70%) ST-segment recovery post-PCI was higher in patients randomised to heparin ± GPIs compared with bivalirudin. CONCLUSIONS: Whether bivalirudin compared with heparin ± GPI reduces bleeding in rescue PCI could not be determined. Slow recruitment and futility in the context of lower-than-expected bleeding event rates led to the termination of this trial (ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12610000152022).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8547635
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85476352021-10-27 Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention Faour, Amir Collins, Nicholas Williams, Trent Khan, Arshad Juergens, Craig P. Lo, Sidney Walters, Darren L. Chew, Derek P. French, John K. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI. OBJECTIVES: We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in patients undergoing rescue PCI. METHODS: Between 2010–2015, we randomly assigned 83 patients undergoing rescue PCI to bivalirudin (n = 42) or heparin ± GPIs (n = 41). The primary safety endpoint was any ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) bleeding at 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was infarct size measured by peak troponin levels as a multiple of the local upper reference limit (Tn/URL). Secondary endpoints included periprocedural change in haemoglobin adjusted for red cells transfused, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding, ST-segment recovery and infarct size determined by the Selvester QRS score. RESULTS: The trial was terminated due to slow recruitment and futility after an interim analysis of 83 patients. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 6 (14%) patients in the bivalirudin group (4.8% GPIs) and 3 (7.3%) in the heparin ± GPIs group (54% GPIs) (risk ratio, 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52–7.3, P = 0.48). Infarct size was similar between the two groups (mean Tn/URL, 730 [±675] for bivalirudin, versus 984 [±1585] for heparin ± GPIs, difference, 254, 95% CI, -283-794, P = 0.86). There was a smaller decrease in the periprocedural haemoglobin level with bivalirudin than heparin ± GPIs (-7.5% [±15] versus -14% [±17], difference, -6.5%, 95% CI, -0.83–14, P = 0.0067). The rate of complete (≥70%) ST-segment recovery post-PCI was higher in patients randomised to heparin ± GPIs compared with bivalirudin. CONCLUSIONS: Whether bivalirudin compared with heparin ± GPI reduces bleeding in rescue PCI could not be determined. Slow recruitment and futility in the context of lower-than-expected bleeding event rates led to the termination of this trial (ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12610000152022). Public Library of Science 2021-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8547635/ /pubmed/34699549 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259148 Text en © 2021 Faour et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Faour, Amir
Collins, Nicholas
Williams, Trent
Khan, Arshad
Juergens, Craig P.
Lo, Sidney
Walters, Darren L.
Chew, Derek P.
French, John K.
Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention
title Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention
title_full Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention
title_fullStr Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention
title_full_unstemmed Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention
title_short Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention
title_sort reperfusion after fibrinolytic therapy (raft): an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8547635/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34699549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259148
work_keys_str_mv AT faouramir reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT collinsnicholas reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT williamstrent reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT khanarshad reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT juergenscraigp reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT losidney reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT waltersdarrenl reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT chewderekp reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT frenchjohnk reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention