Comparison of bivalirudin with heparin versus abciximab with heparin for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in “Real World” practice

ObjectiveWe aimed to carry out a “real world” comparison of bivalirudin plus unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus abciximab plus UFH in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).MethodsWe included patients who had abciximab or bivalirudin during their PPCI in our unit between Sept 2009 and Nov 2011.ResultsThe study included 516 and 484 patients in the bivalirudin and abciximab group respectively. There were more women in the bivalirudin group (29% vs 20%, p 0.001), while cardiogenic shock (6.4% vs 10.1%, p 0.04) and thrombectomy device use (76.6% vs 82%, p 0.04) were lower in the bivalirudin group.The primary composite end point of 30-day mortality, 30-day definite stent thrombosis or non-CABG major bleeding was similar between the bivalirudin and abciximab groups (7.8% vs 9.5%, OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.2, p 0.4). There was also no difference in in-hospital mortality (4.1% vs 4.3%, p 0.9), 30-day mortality (5.2% vs 6.4%, p 0.5), 1-year mortality (9.1% vs 9.9%, p 0.7), 30-day stent thrombosis (1% vs 0.4%, p 0.5) and non-CABG bleeding (2.7 vs 3.7%, p 0.4) between the bivalirudin and abciximab group respectively. On Cox proportional hazard analysis after adjusting for all the co-variates, the use of bivalirudin was not a predictor of 30-day mortality (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.7-1.9, p 0.7).ConclusionIn this “real-world” observational study, there was no significant difference in the clinical outcome of PPCI for patients who had abciximab or bivalirudin after initial pre-treatment with UFH.