Premium
Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention in high‐bleeding‐risk elderly patients with chronic total occlusion: A prospective randomized controlled trial
Author(s) -
Wang Yong,
Zhao HongWei,
Wang ChengFu,
Fan ChunYu,
Zhang XiaoJiao,
Zhu Yu,
Luo DeFeng,
Yu GuoNing,
Hou AiJie,
Luan Bo
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.28087
Subject(s) - medicine , bivalirudin , conventional pci , mace , percutaneous coronary intervention , clinical endpoint , randomized controlled trial , cumulative incidence , incidence (geometry) , surgery , cardiology , myocardial infarction , cohort , physics , optics
Abstract Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) in high‐bleeding‐risk elderly patients. Background Bivalirudin reduces PCI‐related bleeding; however, its efficacy and safety in patients with CTO, especially elderly patients with a high bleeding risk, remain unclear. Methods This single‐center prospective randomized controlled trial assigned 123 high‐bleeding‐risk elderly patients with CTO to either the unfractionated heparin (UFH) group (n = 55) or the bivalirudin group (n = 68). The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during hospitalization and at the 6‐month follow‐up. The safety endpoint was bleeding or procedure (access)‐related complications after PCI. Results MACE incidence was 17.6% and 20.0% in the bivalirudin and UFH groups, respectively ( P = 0.82). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 1–2 bleeding events during hospitalization were comparable between the groups (UFH: 10.9% vs. bivalirudin: 8.8%, P = 0.77). No BARC type 3–5 bleeding events or severe procedure (access)‐related complications (subcutaneous hematoma >5 cm) occurred in either group. At the 6‐month follow‐up, MACE incidence was comparable between the groups (UFH: 3.6% vs. bivalirudin: 1.5%, P = 0.59). The Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed that MACE‐free survival rates were comparable between the groups ( P = 0.43). One case of BARC type 3–5 bleeding (fatal intracranial hemorrhage) was observed in the UFH group at the 6‐month follow‐up. Conclusions Bivalirudin and UFH showed comparable efficacy and safety in elderly patients with a high bleeding risk, undergoing PCI for CTO lesions.