Impact of immune thrombocytopenic purpura on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
- 作者列表："Chehab O","Abdallah N","Kanj A","Pahuja M","Adegbala O","Morsi RZ","Mishra T","Afonso L","Abidov A
BACKGROUND:Patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may be challenging to manage given their increased risk of bleeding complications. There is limited evidence in the literature guiding appropriate interventions in this population. The objective of this study is to determine the difference in clinical outcomes in AMI patients with and without ITP.,METHODS:Using the United States national inpatient sample database, adults aged ≥18 years, who were hospitalized between 2007 and 2014 for AMI, were identified. Among those, patients with ITP were selected. A propensity-matched cohort analysis was performed. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were coronary revascularization procedures, bleeding and cardiovascular complications, and length of stay (LOS).,RESULTS:The propensity-matched cohort included 851 ITP and 851 non-ITP hospitalizations for AMI. There was no difference in mortality between ITP and non-ITP patients with AMI (6% vs7.3%, OR:0.81; 95% CI:0.55-1.19; P = .3). When compared to non-ITP patients, ITP patients with AMI underwent fewer revascularization procedures (40.9% vs 45.9%, OR:0.81; 95% CI:0.67-0.98; P = .03), but had a higher use of bare metal stents (15.4% vs 11.3%, OR:1.43; 95% CI:1.08-1.90; P = .01), increased risk of bleeding complications (OR:1.80; CI:1.36-2.38; P < .0001) and increased length of hospital stay (6.14 vs 5.4 days; mean ratio: 1.14; CI:1.05-1.23; P = .002). More cardiovascular complications were observed in patients requiring transfusions.,CONCLUSIONS:Patients with ITP admitted for AMI had a similar in-hospital mortality risk, but a significantly higher risk of bleeding complications and a longer LOS compared to those without ITP. Further studies are needed to assess optimal management strategies of AMI that minimize complications while improving outcomes in this population.
背景: 因急性心肌梗死 (AMI) 入院的免疫性血小板减少性紫癜 (ITP) 患者由于其出血并发症的风险增加，治疗可能具有挑战性。指导该人群适当干预的文献证据有限。本研究的目的是确定伴和不伴 ITP 的 AMI 患者临床结局的差异。, 方法: 利用美国全国住院患者样本数据库，确定 2007年和 2014 因 AMI 住院的年龄 ≥ 18 岁的成年人。其中选择 ITP 患者。进行了倾向匹配队列分析。主要结局是住院死亡率。次要结局为冠状动脉血运重建术、出血和心血管并发症以及住院时间 (LOS)。结果: 倾向匹配队列包括 851 例 ITP 和 851 例非 ITP AMI 住院。合并 AMI 的 ITP 和非 ITP 患者的死亡率无差异 (6% vs7.3 %，OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.55-1.19; P =.3)。与非 ITP 患者相比，合并 AMI 的 ITP 患者接受血运重建手术的次数较少 (40.9% vs 45.9%，OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67-0.98; P =。 03)，但裸金属支架的使用率较高 (15.4% vs 11.3%，OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.08-1.90; P =。 01)，出血并发症风险增加 (OR: 1.80;CI: 1.36-2.38; p < 。 0001) 和住院时间延长 (6.14 vs 5.4 天; 平均比率: 1.14; CI: 1.05-1.23; P =。 002)。在需要输血的患者中观察到更多的心血管并发症。, 结论: 与无 ITP 的患者相比，因 AMI 入院的 ITP 患者具有相似的住院死亡风险，但出血并发症的风险显著较高，LOS 较长。需要进一步的研究来评估 AMI 的最佳管理策略，以最大限度地减少并发症，同时改善该人群的结局。
METHODS:BACKGROUND: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in combination with clopidogrel improve clinical outcome in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); however, finding a balance that minimizes both thrombotic and bleeding risk remains fundamental. The efficacy and safety of GPI in addition to ticagrelor, a more potent P2Y12-inhibitor, have not been fully investigated. METHODS: 1,630 STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were analyzed in this subanalysis of the ATLANTIC trial. Patients were divided in three groups: no GPI, GPI administration routinely before primary PCI, and GPI administration in bailout situations. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis at 30 days. The safety outcome was non-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related PLATO major bleeding at 30 days. RESULTS: Compared with no GPI (n = 930), routine GPI (n = 525) or bailout GPI (n = 175) was not associated with an improved primary efficacy outcome (4.2% no GPI vs. 4.0% routine GPI vs. 6.9% bailout GPI; p = 0.58). After multivariate analysis, the use of GPI in bailout situations was associated with a higher incidence of non-CABG-related bleeding compared with no GPI (odds ratio [OR] 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-6.64; p = 0.03). However, routine GPI use compared with no GPI was not associated with a significant increase in bleeding (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.88-3.61; p = 0.92). CONCLUSION: Use of GPIs in addition to ticagrelor in STEMI patients was not associated with an improvement in 30-day ischemic outcome. A significant increase in 30-day non-CABG-related PLATO major bleeding was seen in patients who received GPIs in a bailout situation.
METHODS:OBJECTIVES:There are limited data on bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) with positive biomarkers of myocardial necrosis (troponin and/or creatine kinase-myocardial band isoenzyme). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with positive biomarkers from the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We compared the net adverse clinical events [composite ischemia - (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned ischemic revascularization) - or noncoronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG)-related major bleeding] among patients with biomarker-positive NSTE-ACS in the ACUITY trial overall and by antithrombotic strategy. RESULTS:Among 13 819 patients with NSTE-ACS enrolled in ACUITY, 4728 patients presented with positive biomarkers and underwent an early invasive strategy. Of those, 1547 were randomized to heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI), 1555 to bivalirudin plus GPI, and 1626 to bivalirudin monotherapy. Compared with biomarker-negative patients, biomarker-positive patients had higher 30-day rates of net adverse clinical events (14.0 vs. 12.4%; P = 0.04), all-cause death (1.3 vs. 0.5%; P = 0.001), cardiac death (1.1 vs. 0.5%; P = 0.005), and non-CABG-related major bleeding (6.5 vs. 5.2%, P = 0.03). At 30 days, bivalirudin monotherapy was associated with significantly less non-CABG-related major bleeding (bivalirudin monotherapy 4.1% vs. bivalirudin plus GPI 8.4% vs. heparin plus GPI 7.1%) with comparable rates of composite ischemia (bivalirudin monotherapy 9.2% vs. bivalirudin plus GPI 9.9% vs. heparin plus GPI 8.4%). In a multivariable model, bivalirudin monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in non-CABG-related major bleeding but was not associated with an increased risk of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization or stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION:Compared with heparin plus GPI or bivalirudin plus GPI, bivalirudin monotherapy provides similar protection from ischemic events with less major bleeding at 30 days among patients with NSTE-ACS and positive biomarkers.
METHODS:Atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) create a therapeutic dilemma as the risk of bleeding with triple antithrombotic therapy (TATT) must be balanced against the risk of ischemic events with double antithrombotic therapy (DATT). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of DATT versus TATT in AF and CAD. MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles published from inception to May 1, 2019. Studies comparing the safety and efficacy of DATT versus TATT in patients with AF and CAD were included. Among 9 studies, where 6,104 patients received DATT and 7,333 patients received TATT, there was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. There was a lower rate of major bleeding in DATT (risk ratio [RR] 0.64 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.75]; p <0.001). There was no significant difference in stent thrombosis (RR 1.52 [95% CI 0.97 to 2.38]; p = 0.07). However, subgroup analysis of trials with direct oral anticoagulant use demonstrated a borderline higher rate of stent thrombosis in DATT (RR 1.66 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.73]; p = 0.05). In conclusion, DATT showed no difference in the outcomes of mortality, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis compared with TATT. DATT demonstrated a lower rate of major bleeding. DATT demonstrated a borderline higher rate of stent thrombosis in the subgroup analysis of trials with direct oral anticoagulant which needs to be evaluated in further studies.