Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after acute myocardial infarction

BackgroundBivalirudin is replacing heparin as the anticoagulant agent of choice for elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to assess the safety and clinical outcomes of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients undergoing PCI for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).MethodsA cohort of 672 consecutive patients presenting with AMI without prior thrombolytic therapy were treated with either bivalirudin (216 patients) or UFH (456 patients). Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were administered at the operator's discretion. The in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month outcomes of the two groups were compared.ResultsBaseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the groups. In-hospital complications were similar, although there was a trend of a less major hematocrit drop in the bivalirudin group (0.9% vs. 3.1%, P=.09). All clinical outcomes were similar between the groups at 30-day and 6-month follow-ups. There was no statistical significance for acute thrombosis and subacute thrombosis between the groups, and there was no late thrombosis from either group. The event-free survival rate was similar between the groups (P=.41).ConclusionThe use of bivalirudin in patients undergoing PCI after AMI is safe and feasible. Bivalirudin should be considered as an alternative anticoagulant agent during PCI to treat patients presenting with AMI.