Superiority of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction regardless of activated partial thromboplastin time
Ge. Bozovich et al., Superiority of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction regardless of activated partial thromboplastin time, AM HEART J, 140(4), 2000, pp. 637-642
Citations number
16
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems","Cardiovascular & Hematology Research
Background Whether the clinical superiority of enoxaparin versus unfraction
ated heparin (UFH) depends on a more stable antithrombotic effect or the pr
oportion of patients not reaching the therapeutic level with UFH has not be
en addressed.
Methods All patients participating in the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarc
tion 11B trial who received UFH and had sufficient activated partial thromb
oplastin time (aPTT) data (n = 1893) were compared with patients who receiv
ed enoxaparin (n = 1938). Patients receiving UFH were divided into 3 catego
ries depending on mean aPTT values throughout 48 hours: subtherapeutic, for
those in whom the average aPTT fell below 55 seconds; therapeutic, between
55 and 85 seconds; and supratherapeutic, longer than 85 seconds. Events an
d bleeding rates were determined at 48 hours.
Results A small portion of patients (6.7%) had a subtherapeutic average aPT
T value (n = 127). Forty-seven percent of patients (n = 891) fell within th
e therapeutic range, and 46% were in the supratherapeutic level (n = 875).
Event rates were 7.0% in the UFH group versus 5.4% with enoxaparin (P= .039
). Events rates were higher in every aPTT strata compared with enoxaparin a
nd statistically significant in the supratherapeutic group (odds ratio 0.65
; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.89). Major bleeding rates were 0%, 0.6%,
and 0.9% for the subtherapeutic, target, and supratherapeutic strata, respe
ctively, and 0.8% with enoxaparin. Minor hemorrhages occurred in 5.1% of pa
tients receiving enoxaparin versus 3.9%, 2%, and 2.3%, respectively, for th
e UFH subgroups (P < .001 for all UFH groups vs enoxaparin).
Conclusions Enoxaparin showed a better clinical profile compared with every
level of anticoagulation with UFH. Potential mechanisms for enoxaparin sup
eriority are stable antithrombotic activity, lack of rebound thrombosis, an
d intrinsic superiority.