Comparison of Safety and Effectiveness of Bivalirudin Between Diabetic and Nondiabetic Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Authors

  • Tanjima Parvin Associate Professor, Department of Cardiology, BSMMU
  • ABM Golam Mostofa Resident, Department of Cardiology, BSMMU, Dhaka
  • Rawnak Afrin Associate Professor, Nuclear Medicine and Allied, Dhaka Medical College Hospital, Dhaka
  • Tanjir Islam Adit Registrar, Dept. of Medicine, Dhaka Medical College Hospital, Dhaka
  • Md Fakhrul Islam Khaled Associate Professor, Department of Cardiology, UCC, BSMMU, Dhaka
  • Md Jahidul Islam Assistant Professor, National Institute of cardiovascular diseases, NICVD, Dhaka

Keywords:

ACS (Acute Coronary Syndrome), Bivalirudin, Diabetes mellitus (DM), PCI (Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)

Abstract

Background: Recurrent thrombotic events remain significantly high in spite of the currently recommended dual antiplatelet (DAPT) and conventional antithrombotic heparin (± GPI/ glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor) in diabetic ACS patients after PCI compared with non-diabetic even this drug eluting stent (DES) era. Therefore, more potent antithrombotic therapies are warranted for this group of high-risk patients.Comparison of safety and efficacy of newer anticoagulant bivalirudin between diabetic and non-diabetic ACS patients undergoing PCI using bivalirudin versus heparin (± GPI) is less well defined in Bangladeshi population.

Objective: To determine and compare the incidence of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), stent thrombosis and hemorrhagic complications between diabetic and non-diabetic ACS patients undergoing PCI. Impact of antithrombotic strategy (bivalirudin vs. heparin ± GPI) on the 30- day post PCI clinical outcome was also evaluated and compared between diabetic and non-diabetic subgroup.

Methods: In this randomized controlled study, 500 ACS patients aged 18-75 years (200diabetic and 300 non-diabetics) who underwent PCI from November 2018 to October 2019 at the department of cardiology, BSMMU, were randomly assigned, in an open-label fashion to treatment with bivalirudin alone, heparin alone, or heparin plus eptifibatide (GPI) in a 1:1:1 ratio. Among them, 200 patients received Bivalirudin with a loading dose of 0.75 mg/kg, followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg/h for up to 4 hours, 153 patients received UFH with a bolus of 70-100 U/kg (targeted ACT: 200-250 s) and 147 patients got heparin plus eptifibatide as 60 IU/kg heparin along with 180 μg/kg eptifibatide i.v. boluses, followed by a 2 μg /kg /min eptifibatide infusion for 18 hr consistent with current guidelines.Other pre- and post-procedural medications got under current guidelines. Both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects were subdivided into bivalirudin and control group (heparin ± GPI). In diabetic cohort, 100 patients were in bivalirudin and 100 patients were in control group. Among non -diabetic patients, 100 were in bivalirudin and 200 were in control group. The outcome measures were 30-day hemorrhagic complications, stent thrombosis, and MACCEs [death, MI, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stroke] according to diabetic status. The diabetic and non-diabetic subgroup was also analyzed for the same outcome measure according to antithrombotic strategy. Peri and post PCI clinical follow-up comprised checking office visits and telephone contacts.

Results: According to diabetic status, net adverse clinical events (NACEs) were significantly higher in diabetic in comparison to non-diabetic (diabetic vs. non-diabetic, 15% vs. 7.6 %, P=0.008) and was associated with higher incidence of MACCEs (10.5% vs. 4.0%, P=0.004), cardiac death (4 % vs. 1 %, P=0.02) and BARC 2,3,5 grade bleeding events (9% vs. 4 %, P=0.02). In diabetic cohort, incidence of 30-day NACEs was significantly lower in bivalirudin than control group(bivalirudin vs. UFH ± GPI, 6 % vs. 24 %, P=0.004) and was associated with lower incidence of MACCEs (2% vs. 8.5%, P=0.03) and bleeding events (3 % vs. 15 %, P=0.003) whereas incidence of stent thrombosis (2 % vs. 3%, P =0.651) was comparable between the bivalirudin and control groups. There was a significant advantage in favor of bivalirudin treatment among insulin-treated patients with regard to cardiac death at 30-day (bivalirudin vs. control group, 0% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.03) compared with non-insulin treat diabetic patients. However, subgroup analysis of the nondiabetic patients showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of 30-Day NACEs (4% vs. 9.5%, P=0.09) according anticoagulant status.

Multivariate analysis showed that bivalirudin (HR: 0. 202, 95% CI: 0.078 – 0.519, P=0.009) was independent protective factor of 30-day NACEs for diabetic patients.

Conclusion: Bivalirudin monotherapy is safer and more efficacious for diabetic ACS patients compared with non-diabetic ACS patients undergoing PCI.

J Dhaka Med Coll. 2022; 31(1) : 126-136

Abstract
223
PDF
286

Downloads

Published

2023-05-03

How to Cite

Comparison of Safety and Effectiveness of Bivalirudin Between Diabetic and Nondiabetic Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. (2023). Journal of Dhaka Medical College, 31(1), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.3329/jdmc.v31i1.65487

Issue

Section

Original Articles

How to Cite

Comparison of Safety and Effectiveness of Bivalirudin Between Diabetic and Nondiabetic Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. (2023). Journal of Dhaka Medical College, 31(1), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.3329/jdmc.v31i1.65487