Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 284–289 | Cite as

Advances in antithrombin and antiplatelet therapy for percutaneous coronary intervention

Article

Abstract

Recent advances in anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy have made significant improvements in patient outcomes in percutaneous coronary interventions. Direct thrombin inhibitors have found an increasing role in coronary interventions as more trials validate their efficacy and safety. Further refinements of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are enabling tailoring of these medications for the appropriate populations. While heparin alone had been the mainstay of anticoagulant therapy for many years, increasing studies with low molecular weight heparins, such as enoxaparin, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have altered the landscape of percutaneous coronary interventions. The development of antiplatelet agents has been accelerated to improve long-term results. Over the past year, many exciting new developments in antithrombotic therapy with coronary intervention have evolved, providing improvement in patient care.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Popma JJ, Berger P, Ohman EM, et al.: Antithrombotic therapy during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Seventh AACP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest 2004, 126:576S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith SC Jr, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW Jr, et al.: ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:e1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lincoff AM, Bittl JA, Harrington RA, et al.: Bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary intervention: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA 2003, 289:853.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibson CM, Morrow DA, Murphy SA, et al.: A randomized trial to evaluate the relative protection against post-percutaneous coronary intervention microvascular dysfunction, ischemia, and inflammation among antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents: the PROTECT-TIMI-30 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:2364–2373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibson CM, Braunwald E: Reply. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007, 49:730–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibson CM, Kirtane AJ, Morrow DA, et al.: Association between thrombolysis in myocardial infarction myocardial-perfusion grade, biomarkers, and clinical outcomes among patients with moderate-to high-risk acute coronary syndromes: observations from the randomized trial to evaluate the relative PROTECTion against post-PCI microvascular dysfunction and post-PCI ischemia among antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 30 (PROTECT-TIMI 30). Am Heart J 2006, 152:756–761.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gibson CM, Kirtane AJ, Murphy SA, et al.: Early initiation of eptifibatide in the emergency department before primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the Time to Integrilin Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TITAN)-TIMI 34 trial. Am Heart J 2006, 152:668–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stone GW, McLaurin BT, Cox DA, et al.: Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2006, 355:2203–2216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stone GW: ACUITY PCI: bivalirudin monotherapy is effective. Paper presented at TCT 2006. Washington, DC; October 22–27, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waksman R, Wolfram RM, Torguson RL, et al.: Switching from enoxaparin to bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Results from SWITCH—a Multicenter Clinical Trial. J Invasive Cardiol 2006, 18:370–375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferguson JJ, Califf RM, Antman EM, et al.: Enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an intended early invasive strategy: primary results of the SYNERGY randomized trial. JAMA 2004, 292:45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montalescot G, White HD, Gallo R, et al.: Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2006, 355:1006–1017.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Lemos J, Blazing M, Wiviott S, et al.: Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in patients treated with tirofiban, aspirin and an early conservative initial management strategy: results from the A phase of the A-to-Z trial. Eur Heart J 2004, 25:1688–1694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gibson CM, Murphy SA, Morrow DA, et al.: PCI in patients receiving enoxaparin or UFH following fibrinolytic therapy for STEMI: PCI ExTRACT-TIMI 25. Program and abstracts presented at the European Society of Cardiology 2006 World Congress. Barcelona, Spain; September 2–6, 2006. Also in press J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes Investigators; Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, et al.: Comparison of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2006, 354:1464–1476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, et al.: Effects of fondaparinux on mortality and reinfarction in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the OASIS-6 randomized trial. JAMA 2006, 295:1519–1530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karvouni E, Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JP: Intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists reduce mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 41:26–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newby LK, Ohman EM, Christenson RH, et al.: Benefit of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in patients with acute coronary syndromes and troponin T-positive status: the paragon-B troponin T substudy. Circulation 2001, 103:2891–2896.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Montalescot G, Borentain M, Payot L, et al.: Early vs late administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in primary percutaneous coronary intervention of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2004, 292:362–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gibson CM, Kirtane AJ, Murphy SA, et al.: TIMI Study Group. Early initiation of eptifibatide in the emergency department before primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the Time to Integrilin Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TITAN)-TIMI 34 trial. Am Heart J 2006, 152:668–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bolognese L, Falsini G, Liistro F, et al.: Randomized comparison of upstream tirofiban versus downstream high bolus dose tirofiban or abciximab on tissue-level perfusion and troponin release in high-risk acute coronary syndromes treated with percutaneous coronary interventions: the EVEREST trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:522–528.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stone GW, Bertrand ME, Moses JW, et al.: Routine upstream initiation vs deferred selective use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: the ACUITY Timing trial. JAMA 2007, 297:591–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Giugliano RP, Newby LK, Harrington RA, et al.: The early glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (EARLY ACS) trial: a randomized placebo-controlled trial evaluating the clinical benefits of early front-loaded eptifibatide in the treatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: study design and rationale. Am Heart J 2005, 149:994–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Schuhlen H, et al.: A clinical trial of abciximab in elective percutaneous coronary intervention after pre-treatment with clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 2004, 350:232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Neumann FJ, et al.: Abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after clopidogrel pretreatment: the ISAR-REACT 2 randomized trial. JAMA 2006, 295:1531–1538.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dery JP, Campbell ME, Mathias J, et al.: Complementary effects of thienopyridine pretreatment and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa integrilin blockade with eptifibatide in coronary stent intervention; results from the ESPRIT trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007, Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cuisset T, Frere C, Quillici J, et al.: Benefit of a 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel on platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 48:1339–1345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patti G, Colonna G, Pasceri V, et al.: Randomized trial of high loading dose of clopidogrel for reduction of periprocedural myocardial infarction in patients undergoing coronary intervention. Results from the ARMYDA-2 (Antiplatelet therapy for Reduction of MYocardial Damage during Angioplasty) study. Circulation 2005, 111:2099–2106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gurbel PA, Bliden KP, Zaman KA, et al.: Clopidogrel loading with eptifibatide to arrest the reactivity of platelets: results of the Clopidogrel Loading With Eptifibatide to Arrest the Reactivity of Platelets (CLEAR PLATELETS) study. Circulation 2005, 111:1153–1159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Montalescot G, Sideris G, Meuleman C, et al.: A randomized comparison of high clopidogrel loading doses in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 48:931–938.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Greenbaum AB, Grines CL, Bittle JA, et al.: Initial experience with an intravenous P2Y12 platelet receptor antagonist in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from a 2-part, phase II, multicenter, randomized, placebo-and active-controlled trial. Am Heart J 2006, 151:689.e1–689.e10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wiviott SD, Antman EM, Gibson CM, et al.: Evaluation of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes: design and rationale for the Trial to assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by optimizing platelet InhibitioN with prasugrel Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 (TRITON-TIMI 38). Am Heart J 2006, 152:627–635.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Medicine Group LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BostonUSA

Personalised recommendations