Faculty Bibliography

CONTEXT: Enoxaparin has demonstrated advantages over unfractionated heparin in low- to moderate-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with a conservative strategy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of patients treated with enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin and to define the role of enoxaparin in patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS at high risk for ischemic cardiac complications managed with an early invasive approach. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (SYNERGY) trial was a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, international trial conducted between August 2001 and December 2003. A total of 10 027 high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS to be treated with an intended early invasive strategy were recruited. INTERVENTIONS: Subcutaneous enoxaparin (n = 4993) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (n = 4985) was to be administered immediately after enrollment and continued until the patient required no further anticoagulation, as judged by the treating physician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was the composite clinical end point of all-cause death or nonfatal myocardial infarction during the first 30 days after randomization. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding or stroke. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 14.0% (696/4993) of patients assigned to enoxaparin and 14.5% (722/4985) of patients assigned to unfractionated heparin (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.06). No differences in ischemic events during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were observed between enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin groups, respectively, including similar rates of abrupt closure (31/2321 [1.3%] vs 40/2364 [1.7%]), threatened abrupt closure (25/2321 [1.1%] vs 24/2363 [1.0%]), unsuccessful PCI (81/2281 [3.6%] vs 79/2328 [3.4%]), or emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery (6/2323 [0.3%] vs 8/2363 [0.3%]). More bleeding was observed with enoxaparin, with a statistically significant increase in TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) major bleeding (9.1% vs 7.6%, P =.008) but nonsignificant excess in GUSTO (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Arteries) severe bleeding (2.7% vs 2.2%, P =.08) and transfusions (17.0% vs 16.0%, P =.16). CONCLUSIONS: Enoxaparin was not superior to unfractionated heparin but was noninferior for the treatment of high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS. Enoxaparin is a safe and effective alternative to unfractionated heparin and the advantages of convenience should be balanced with the modest excess of major bleeding

INTRODUCTION: The target activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) range of 1.5 to 2.5 times the control value or 45 to 75 seconds recommended by the ACC/AHA for patients receiving unfractionated heparin (UFH) for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is vulnerable to variation in test reagents. Rather than use the standard target aPTT range, it has been recommended that each institution establish its own target aPTT range based upon anti-factor Xa heparin levels. As a quality assurance project, we evaluated our institution's therapeutic aPTT range by examining the correlation between aPTTs and anti-factor Xa heparin levels and established a new target aPTT range with a new thromboplastin reagent based upon the therapeutic anti-factor Xa heparin levels. METHODS: Sixty-two plasma samples from 26 consecutive patients receiving UFH for ACS were analyzed. Plasma aPTTs measured with a thromboplastin reagent and a new thromboplastin reagent and anti-factor Xa heparin levels were obtained on each plasma sample. Linear regression analysis was performed to establish a new target aPTT range from corresponding therapeutic anti-factor Xa heparin levels. RESULTS: Thirty-two percent of patients with our institution's target range aPTTs of 61 to 100 seconds had anti-factor Xa heparin levels below 0.35 to 0.7 U/mL while 68% of patients had therapeutic anti-factor Xa heparin levels (positive predictive value = 68%). When the same blood was tested with a new thromboplastin reagent lot, only 9% of patients with target range aPTTs had anti-factor Xa heparin levels below 0.35 U/mL while 91% of patients had therapeutic anti-factor Xa heparin levels (positive predictive value = 91%). The Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ) for the new thromboplastin reagent lot was 0.93. The target aPTT range established with the new thromboplastin reagent lot was 61 to 100 seconds. CONCLUSION: Monitoring aPTTs without standardizing the thromboplastin reagent may not adequately reflect therapeutic heparin levels. Despite apparently target aPTTs, patients treated with UFH may be under-anticoagulated. Our new anti-Xa-adjusted target aPTT range shows an increase in the positive predictive value of aPTTs. Large-scale clinical studies are needed to determine the optimal anti-factor Xa range for ACS patients treated with UFH, with further refinements if glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are concomitantly used and to show a benefit in clinical outcomes for monitoring plasma heparin levels with anti-factor Xa heparin levels. Institutional standardization of the aPTT is necessary to ensure optimal patient care when changing thromboplastin reagents

In a nonrandomized feasibility study of therapeutic hypothermia in acute myocardial infarction, 18 patients were treated with endovascular cooling (Alsius, Irvine, California) as adjunctive therapy to primary percutaneous coronary intervention to assess measures of infarct size (area under the curve creatinine kinase-MB and technetium-99m single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi) and the quality of myocardial perfusion (continuous ST-segment monitoring). Periprocedural endovascular cooling successfully decreased core body temperature (median 33.5 degrees C) and was well tolerated, which supports the evaluation of adjunctive hypothermia in pivotal trials to limit infarct size and decrease reperfusion injury

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is associated with an increased risk for coronary artery disease (CAD) and its complications. The relative effect of glucose-lowering strategies of 'insulin provision' versus 'insulin sensitization' among patients with CAD remains unclear. METHODS: To evaluate the associations of diabetes and hypoglycemic strategies with clinical outcomes after acute coronary syndromes, we analyzed data from 15,800 patients enrolled in the SYMPHONY and 2nd SYMPHONY trials. RESULTS: Compared with nondiabetic patients, patients with diabetes (n = 3101; 19.6%) were older, more often female, more often had prior CAD, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, and less often were current smokers. The diabetic cohort had higher 90-day unadjusted risk of the composite of death/myocardial infarction (MI)/severe recurrent ischemia (SRI), death/MI, and death alone, as well as a near doubling of 1-year mortality rates. At 1 year, diabetes was associated with significantly higher adjusted risks of death/MI/SRI (OR, 1.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.1, 1.5]) and death/MI (OR, 1.2 [1.0, 1.4]). Hypoglycemic therapy including only insulin and/or sulfonylurea (insulin-providing; n = 1473) was associated with higher 90-day death/MI/SRI compared with therapy that included only biguanide and/or thiazolidinedione therapy (insulin-sensitizing; n = 100) (12.0% vs 5.0%); (adjusted OR, 2.1 [1.2, 3.7]). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients with acute coronary syndromes had worse clinical outcomes. Although the findings regarding the influence of glycemic-control strategies should be interpreted with caution because of the exploratory nature of the analyses and the relatively small sample size of the insulin-sensitizing group, the improved risk-adjusted outcomes associated with insulin-sensitizing therapy underscore the need to further evaluate treatment strategies for patients with diabetes and CAD