Current Atherosclerosis Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 140–147

Low molecular weight heparin and atherosclerosis

  • Dan Hunt
Article

Abstract

Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has dramatically impacted the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease and acute coronary syndromes. Recent studies help define the role of these agents for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions and for patients treated with thrombolytic agents for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Recent studies also suggest potential usefulness of LMWH for patients with peripheral vascular disease and its limits of utility in stroke. This review summarizes the evidence about the use of LMWH in these clinical situations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wallentin L: Low-molecular-weight heparins in coronary thrombosis: today and tomorrow. Haemostasis 1999, 29(suppl 1):32–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antman EM, Cohen M: Newer antithrombin agents in acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 1999, 138(6 Pt 2):S563-S569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levine GN, Ali MN, Schafer AI: Antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Arch Intern Med 2001, 161:937–948.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirsh J, Warkentin TE, Shaughnessy SG, et al.: Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin: mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, dosing, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest 2001, 119(suppl 1):64S-94S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    White RH, Ginsberg JS. Low-molecular-weight heparins: are they all the same? Br J Haematol 2003, 121:12–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eikelboom JW, Anand SS, Malmberg K, et al.: Unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin in acute coronary syndrome without ST elevation: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2000, 355:1936–1942.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, et al.: ACC/AHA guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction—2002: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). Circulation 2002, 106:1893–1900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gurfinkel EP, Manos EJ, Mejail RI, et al.: Low molecular weight heparin versus regular heparin or aspirin in the treatment of unstable angina and silent ischemia. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995, 26:313–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Husted S, et al.: Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial. Lancet 2000, 356:9–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Low-molecular-weight heparin during instability in coronary artery disease, Fragmin during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease (FRISC) study group. Lancet 1996, 347:561–568.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Antman EM, Cohen M, Radley D, et al.: Assessment of the treatment effect of enoxaparin for unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. TIMI 11B-ESSENCE meta-analysis. Circulation 1999, 100:1602–1608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen M, Demers C, Gurfinkel EP, et al.: A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous enoxaparin in non-Q-wave coronary events study group. N Engl J Med 1997, 337:447–452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein W, Buchwald A, Hillis WS, et al.: Fragmin in unstable angina pectoris or in non-Q-wave acute myocardial infarction (the FRIC study). Fragmin in Unstable Coronary Artery Disease. Am J Cardiol 1997, 80:30E-34E.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Comparison of two treatment durations (6 days and 14 days) of a low molecular weight heparin with a 6-day treatment of unfractionated heparin in the initial management of unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction: FRAX.I.S. (FRAxiparine in Ischaemic Syndrome). Eur Heart J 1999, 20:1553–1562.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Magee KD, Sevcik W, Moher D, Rowe BH: Low molecular weight heparins versus unfractionated heparin for acute coronary syndromes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003(1):CD002132.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hylek EM, Regan S, Henault LE, et al.: Challenges to the effective use of unfractionated heparin in the hospitalized management of acute thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 2003, 163:621–627.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zed PJ, Tisdale JE, Borzak S: Low-molecular-weight heparins in the management of acute coronary syndromes. Arch Intern Med 1999, 159:1849–1857.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mark DB, Cowper PA, Berkowitz SD, et al.: Economic assessment of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndrome patients: results from the ESSENCE randomized trial. Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q wave Coronary Events [unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction]. Circulation 1998, 97:1702–1707.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Antman EM, McCabe CH, Gurfinkel EP, et al.: Enoxaparin prevents death and cardiac ischemic events in unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Results of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 11B trial. Circulation 1999, 100:1593–1601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen M: The role of low-molecular-weight heparin in the management of acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 41(suppl 4):55S-61S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Michalis LK, Katsouras CS, Papamichael N, et al.: Enoxaparin versus tinzaparin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: the EVET trial. Am Heart J 2003, 146:304–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferguson JJ: Defining the scope of evidence-based practice for low-molecular-weight heparin therapy in high-risk patients with unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol 2002, 25(11 suppl 1):I16-I22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohen M, Theroux P, Weber S, et al.: Combination therapy with tirofiban and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes. Int J Cardiol 1999, 71:273–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cohen M, Theroux P, Borzak S, et al.: Randomized double-blind safety study of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes treated with tirofiban and aspirin: the ACUTE II study. The Antithrombotic Combination Using Tirofiban and Enoxaparin. Am Heart J 2002, 144:470–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mukherjee D, Mahaffey KW, Moliterno DJ, et al.: Promise of combined low-molecular-weight heparin and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition: results from Platelet IIb/IIIa Antagonist for the Reduction of Acute coronary syndrome events in a Global Organization Network B (PARAGON B). Am Heart J 2002, 144:995–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    James S, Armstrong P, Califf R, et al.: Safety and efficacy of abciximab combined with dalteparin in treatment of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2002, 23:1538–1545.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kereiakes DJ, Grines C, Fry E, et al.: Enoxaparin and abciximab adjunctive pharmacotherapy during percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol 2001, 13:272–278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bhatt DL, Lee BI, Casterella PJ, et al.: Safety of concomitant therapy with eptifibatide and enoxaparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the Coronary Revascularization Using Integrilin and Single bolus Enoxaparin Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 41:20–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    The SYNERGY trial: study design and rationale. Am Heart J 2002, 143:952–960.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reddan D, Szczech LA, O’Shea S, Califf RM: Anticoagulation in acute cardiac care in patients with chronic kidney disease. Am Heart J 2003, 145:586–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spinler SA, Inverso SM, Cohen M, et al.: Safety and efficacy of unfractionated heparin versus enoxaparin in patients who are obese and patients with severe renal impairment: analysis from the ESSENCE and TIMI 11B studies. Am Heart J 2003, 146:33–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Green B, Duffull SB: Development of a dosing strategy for enoxaparin in obese patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003, 56:96–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Collet JP, Montalescot G, Fine E, et al.: Enoxaparin in unstable angina patients who would have been excluded from randomized pivotal trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 41:8–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jacobs AK: Primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction—is it worth the wait? N Engl J Med 2003, 349:798–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL: Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 2003, 361:13–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al.: A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:733–742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Theroux P, Welsh RC: Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin as adjunctive therapy to fibrinolysis in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2003, 91:860–864.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in combination with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin: the ASSENT-3 randomised trial in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 2001, 358:605–613.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cohen M, Gensini GF, Maritz F, et al.: The safety and efficacy of subcutaneous enoxaparin versus intravenous unfractionated heparin and tirofiban versus placebo in the treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients ineligible for reperfusion (TETAMI): a randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 42:1348–1356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Albers GW, Amarenco P, Easton JD, et al.: Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke. Chest 2001, 119(suppl 1):300S-320S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bath PM, Lindenstrom E, Boysen G, et al.: Tinzaparin in acute ischaemic stroke (TAIST): a randomised aspirin-controlled trial. Lancet 2001, 358:702–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Edmondson RA, Cohen AT, Das SK, et al.: Low-molecular weight heparin versus aspirin and dipyridamole after femoropopliteal bypass grafting. Lancet 1994, 344:914–918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Logason K, Bergqvist D: Low molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus dextran in the prevention of early occlusion following arterial bypass surgery distal to the groin. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2001, 21:261–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shammas NW, Lemke JH, Dippel EJ, et al.: In-hospital complications of peripheral vascular interventions using unfractionated heparin as the primary anticoagulant. J Invasive Cardiol 2003, 15:242–246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schweizer J, Muller A, Forkmann L, et al.: Potential use of a low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent restenosis in patients with extensive wall damage following peripheral angioplasty. Angiology 2001, 52:659–669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Strecker EP, Gottmann D, Boos IB, Vetter S: Low-molecular-weight heparin (reviparin) reduces the incidence of femoropopliteal in-stent stenosis: preliminary results of an ongoing study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1998, 21:375–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Hunt
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of General Internal MedicineBen Taub General HospitalHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations