Cardiorenal risk of celecoxib compared with naproxen or ibuprofen in arthritis patients: insights from the PRECISION trial.

AIMS: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most frequently used drugs, both prescribed and over the counter. The long-term cardiovascular safety of NSAIDs in patients with arthritis has engendered controversy. Concerns remain regarding the relative incidence and severity of adverse cardiorenal effects, particularly in arthritis patients with established cardiovascular (CV) disease or risk factors for disease as illustrated by the PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs. Ibuprofen Or Naproxen) trial participants (NCT00346216).We further investigated whether the selective COX-2 Inhibitor celecoxib has a superior cardiorenal safety profile compared with ibuprofen or naproxen in the PRECISION population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-four thousand eighty-one patients who required NSAIDs for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and had increased CV risk randomly received celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The current pre-specified secondary analysis assessed the incidence, severity, and NSAID-related risk of the pre-specified composite cardiorenal outcome (adjudicated renal event, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, or hospitalization for hypertension) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. An on-treatment analysis assessed safety in those taking the study medication. Following a mean treatment duration of 20.3 ± 16.0 months and a mean follow-up of 34.1 ± 13.4 months, the primary cardiorenal composite outcome occurred in 423 patients (1.76%) in the ITT population. Of these 423 patients, 118 (28%) were in the celecoxib, 166 (39%) in the ibuprofen, and 139 (33%) in the naproxen group. In a multivariable Cox regression model adjusted for independent clinical variables, celecoxib showed a significantly lower risk compared with ibuprofen [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.85, P = 0.001) and a trend to lower risk compared with naproxen (HR 0.79, CI 0.61-1.00, P = 0.058). In the ITT analysis, clinically significant renal events occurred in 220 patients with events rates of 0.71%, 1.14%, and 0.89% for celecoxib, ibuprofen, and naproxen, respectively (P = 0.052), while in the on-treatment analysis the rates were 0.52%, 0.91%, and 0.78% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the current era, long-term NSAID use was associated with few cardiorenal events in arthritis patients. At the doses studied, celecoxib displayed fewer renal events and hence more favourable cardiovascular safety compared with ibuprofen or naproxen. These results have considerable clinical implications for practitioners managing individuals with chronic arthritis pain and high risk of impaired renal function and/or heart failure.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00346216.

Mavrilimumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation (MASH-COVID): an investigator initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with COVID-19, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) might be a mediator of the hyperactive inflammatory response associated with respiratory failure and death. We aimed to evaluate whether mavrilimumab, a monoclonal antibody to the GM-CSF receptor, would improve outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation. METHODS: This investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial was done at seven hospitals in the USA. Inclusion required hospitalisation, COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxaemia, and a C-reactive protein concentration of more than 5 mg/dL. Patients were excluded if they required mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, with stratification by hospital site, to receive mavrilimumab 6 mg/kg as a single intravenous infusion, or placebo. Participants and all clinical and research personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and off supplemental oxygen therapy at day 14. The primary outcome and safety were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04399980, NCT04463004, and NCT04492514. FINDINGS: Between May 28 and Sept 15, 2020, 40 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to mavrilimumab (n=21) or placebo (n=19). A trial of 60 patients was planned, but given slow enrolment, the study was stopped early to inform the natural history and potential treatment effect. At day 14, 12 (57%) patients in the mavrilimumab group were alive and off supplemental oxygen therapy compared with nine (47%) patients in the placebo group (odds ratio 1·48 [95% CI 0·43-5·16]; p=0·76). There were no treatment-related deaths, and adverse events were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and off oxygen therapy at day 14, although benefit or harm of mavrilimumab therapy in this patient population remains possible given the wide confidence intervals, and larger trials should be completed. FUNDING: Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals.

Double-blind randomized proof-of-concept trial of canakinumab in patients with COVID-19 associated cardiac injury and heightened inflammation.

Aims: In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), myocardial injury is associated with systemic inflammation and higher mortality. Our aim was to perform a proof of concept trial with canakinumab, a monoclonal antibody to interleukin-1ß, in patients with COVID-19, myocardial injury, and heightened inflammation. Methods and results: This trial required hospitalization due to COVID-19, elevated troponin, and a C-reactive protein concentration more than 50 mg/L. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement at Day 14, defined as either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital. The secondary endpoint was mortality at Day 28. Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to canakinumab 600 mg (n = 15), canakinumab 300 mg (n = 14), or placebo (n = 16). There was no difference in time to clinical improvement compared to placebo [recovery rate ratio (RRR) for canakinumab 600 mg 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-2.91; RRR for canakinumab 300 mg 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-1.64]. At Day 28, 3 (18.8%) of 15 patients had died in the placebo group, compared with 3 (21.4%) of 14 patients with 300 mg canakinumab, and 1 (6.7%) of 15 patients with 600 mg canakinumab. There were no treatment-related deaths, and adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusion: There was no difference in time to clinical improvement at Day 14 in patients treated with canakinumab, and no safety concerns were identified. Future studies could focus on high dose canakinumab in the treatment arm and assess efficacy outcomes at Day 28.

Strengthening the interpretability of clinical trial results by assessing the effect of informative censoring on the primary estimand in PRECISION.

BACKGROUND: The ICH E9(R1) addendum states that the strategy to account for intercurrent events should be included when defining an estimand, the treatment effect to be estimated based on the study objective. The estimator used to assess the treatment effect needs to be aligned with the estimand that accounted for intercurrent events. Regardless of the strategy, missing data resulting from patient premature withdrawal could undermine the robustness of the study results. Informative censoring due to dropouts in an events-based study is one such example. Sensitivity analyses using imputation methods are useful to examine the uncertainty due to informative censoring and address the robustness and strength of the study results. METHODS: We assessed the effect of premature patient withdrawal in the PRECISION study, a randomized non-inferiority clinical trial of patients with chronic arthritic pain that compared the cardiovascular safety of three nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-based treatment policies or paradigms. The protocol-defined use of concomitant or rescue medications was permitted since changes in pain medications due to insufficient analgesia were expected in patients in this long-term study. Anticipating that premature study discontinuations could potentially lead to informative censoring, a supplementary analysis was pre-specified in which censored outcomes due to the premature study discontinuation were imputed based on adverse events that were clinically associated with the primary endpoint (cardiovascular outcome based on the Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration composite endpoint). Furthermore, tipping point analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the primary analysis results by assuming data censored not at random. The level of increase at which the primary study conclusion would change was estimated. RESULTS: For the analysis of time to first primary endpoint event through 30 months, 4065 out of the 24,081 enrolled patients were lost to follow-up, withdrew consent, or were no longer willing to participate in the study. These withdrawals occurred gradually and resulted in a cumulative total of 5893 censored patient-years of observation (10.2%). The rate of discontinuation and the baseline characteristics of the discontinued patients were similar across the three treatment groups. The non-inferiority conclusion from the primary analysis was confirmed in the supplementary analysis incorporating relevant adverse events. Furthermore, tipping point analyses demonstrated that in order to lose non-inferiority in the primary analysis, the risk of primary endpoint events during the censored observation time would have to increase by more than 2.7-fold in the celecoxib group while remaining constant in the other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs groups, demonstrating that the scenarios where the study results are invalid appear not plausible. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementary and sensitivity analyses presented to address informative censoring in PRECISION helped to further interpret and strengthen the study results.

Effect of Left Ventricular Conduction Delay on All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality (from the PRECISION Trial).

The prognosis associated with prolonged intraventricular conduction on electrocardiogram (ECG) remains uncertain. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of narrow versus prolonged intraventricular conduction on ECG stratified by QRS morphology and cardiovascular disease (CVD) status. A post-hoc analysis was performed of the randomized-control PRECISION trial. Patients with centrally adjudicated, nonpaced baseline ECGs were included. QRS duration was classified narrow (≤100 ms) versus prolonged (>100 ms) with additional categorization into left (LBBB) or right (RBBB) bundle branch block or nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD). IVCD was subclassified if left ventricular conduction delay (LVCD) was present (L-IVCD) or absent (O-IVCD). The primary outcome was adjudicated all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. Of 24,081 patients randomized, 22,067 (92%) were included with follow-up 34 ± 13 months. Study patients were 63 ± 9 years, 64% female, 75% Caucasian, 23% with established CVD. The prevalence of QRS prolongation was 5.6% (1,240): 760 right bundle branch block (3.4%), 313 LBBB (1.4%), and 161 IVCD (0.7%), 95 subclassified L-IVCD (0.4%). After adjustment, LBBB and L-IVCD were similarly associated with increased all-cause (LBBB: 2.3 [1.4 to 3.8], p = 0.001; L-IVCD: 4.0 [2.1 to 7.9], p <0.001) and CV (LBBB: 3.6 [2.0 to 6.5], p <0.001; L-IVCD 3.6 [1.3 to 9.7], p = 0.001) mortality. The presence of LVCD (LBBB or L-IVCD) was associated with all-cause (2.8 [1.8 to 4.2], p <0.001) and CV (3.6 [2.2 to 6.1], p <0.001) mortality exceeding the observed risks of coronary artery disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, or diabetes. The LVCD hazard persisted across QRS durations (100 to 120 vs >120 ms) and CVD status. In conclusion, LVCD, whether LBBB or L-IVCD, was strongly associated with increased mortality in patients with and at-risk for CVD.

Differences in Safety of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs in Patients With Osteoarthritis and Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative risks of cardiovascular (CV), gastrointestinal (GI), and renal adverse events during long-term treatment with celecoxib, compared with ibuprofen and naproxen, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A total of 24,081 patients with OA or RA who had a moderate or high risk for CV disease were enrolled internationally into a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Interventions included celecoxib at a dosage of 100-200 mg twice daily, ibuprofen at a dosage of 600-800 mg 3 times daily, or naproxen at a dosage of 375-500 mg twice daily. The main outcomes were the first occurrence of a major adverse CV event, GI event, or renal event, and mortality. RESULTS: In the subgroup of patients with OA, the risk of a major adverse CV event was significantly reduced when celecoxib was compared with ibuprofen (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.72-0.99), but no significant difference was observed when celecoxib was compared with naproxen. In the RA subgroup, comparisons of celecoxib versus ibuprofen and celecoxib versus naproxen for the risk of major adverse CV events revealed HRs of 1.06 (95% CI 0.69-1.63) and 1.22 (95% CI 0.78-1.92), respectively. In the OA subgroup, comparisons of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the risk of GI events showed an HR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.51-0.91), and a comparison of celecoxib versus naproxen showed an HR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.55-0.98). Duplicate comparisons in patients with RA revealed HRs of 0.48 (95% CI 0.22-1.07) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.24-1.24), respectively. In patients with OA, a comparison of celecoxib versus ibuprofen for the risk of renal events showed an HR of 0.58 (95% CI 0.40-0.82). In patients with RA, celecoxib treatment was associated with significantly lower mortality compared with naproxen treatment (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.88). CONCLUSION: Treatment with celecoxib at approved dosages conferred a similar or lower risk of CV, GI, and renal adverse events compared with treatment with ibuprofen or naproxen in patients with OA and patients with RA.

Cardiovascular Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen, or Ibuprofen for Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, as compared with nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), remains uncertain. METHODS: Patients who required NSAIDs for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The goal of the trial was to assess the noninferiority of celecoxib with regard to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Noninferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 97.5% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the intention-to-treat population and of 1.40 or lower in the on-treatment population. Gastrointestinal and renal outcomes were also adjudicated. RESULTS: A total of 24,081 patients were randomly assigned to the celecoxib group (mean [±SD] daily dose, 209±37 mg), the naproxen group (852±103 mg), or the ibuprofen group (2045±246 mg) for a mean treatment duration of 20.3±16.0 months and a mean follow-up period of 34.1±13.4 months. During the trial, 68.8% of the patients stopped taking the study drug, and 27.4% of the patients discontinued follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analyses, a primary outcome event occurred in 188 patients in the celecoxib group (2.3%), 201 patients in the naproxen group (2.5%), and 218 patients in the ibuprofen group (2.7%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.13; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). In the on-treatment analysis, a primary outcome event occurred in 134 patients in the celecoxib group (1.7%), 144 patients in the naproxen group (1.8%), and 155 patients in the ibuprofen group (1.9%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.15; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.02; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). The risk of gastrointestinal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.01) or ibuprofen (P=0.002); the risk of renal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with ibuprofen (P=0.004) but was not significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: At moderate doses, celecoxib was found to be noninferior to ibuprofen or naproxen with regard to cardiovascular safety. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00346216 .).

Beta-blockers and progression of coronary atherosclerosis: pooled analysis of 4 intravascular ultrasonography trials.

BACKGROUND: In patients with myocardial infarction, beta-adrenergic blockers reduce recurrent myocardial infarction and total mortality rates. However, whether a direct influence of beta-blockers on coronary atherosclerosis contributes to reduced recurrent myocardial infarction and total mortality rates is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether beta-blocker therapy is associated with reduced atheroma progression in adults with known coronary artery disease. DESIGN: Post hoc, pooled analysis of individual patient data from 4 intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) trials. SETTING: Four IVUS trials conducted in the United States, Europe, and Australia. PATIENTS: 1515 patients with coronary artery disease. INTERVENTION: The original trials used 3 different statins, a calcium-channel blocker, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, or an acyl coenzyme A-cholesterol acyltransferase inhibitor. MEASUREMENTS: Changes in atheroma volume, as determined by IVUS after adjustment for possible confounders by using linear mixed-effects models, were compared in patients who did and did not receive concomitant beta-blocker treatment. RESULTS: Patients who received beta-blockers (n = 1154) were more likely to have histories of myocardial infarction, angina, and hypertension than were patients who did not receive beta-blockers (n = 361). The estimated annual change in atheroma volume was statistically significantly less in patients who received beta-blockers. This was true for univariate and multivariable analyses that controlled for history of myocardial infarction, angina, and hypertension (mean [+/-SE] atheroma volume, -2.4 +/- 0.5 mm3/y in treated patients vs. -0.4 +/- 0.8 mm3/y in untreated patients; P = 0.034). Accordingly, atheroma volume statistically significantly decreased at follow-up IVUS in patients who received beta-blockers (P < 0.001) and did not change in patients who did not receive beta-blockers (P = 0.86). Additional adjustments for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, concomitant medications, and clinical trial did not change the results. LIMITATIONS: Patients were not randomly assigned to beta-blocker therapy, and interventions other than beta-blocker therapy could have influenced the changes in atheroma volume. Whether progression rate of atherosclerosis as detected by IVUS predicts cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis demonstrates that beta-blockers can slow progression of coronary atherosclerosis. The findings provide additional support for the current clinical guidelines advocating long-term use of beta-blockers to treat most forms of coronary artery disease.

Effects of normal, pre-hypertensive, and hypertensive blood pressure levels on progression of coronary atherosclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of normal blood pressure (BP), pre-hypertension, and hypertension on progression of coronary atherosclerosis. BACKGROUND: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-7) classifies BP as normal, pre-hypertension, and hypertension. The effects of these categories on progression of coronary atherosclerosis are unknown. METHODS: The 274 patients who completed the intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) substudy of the CAMELOT (Comparison of Amlodipine Versus Enalapril to Limit Occurrences of Thrombosis) trial were included. The entry criteria were > or =1 angiographic coronary stenosis >20% and diastolic BP <100 mm Hg. Patients underwent a baseline coronary IVUS, which was repeated after 2 years of amlodipine, enalapril, or placebo therapy. The BP was evaluated periodically, and the averages of the measurements were used in the analyses. RESULTS: Mean BP throughout the study was 127.0 +/- 12.0/75.5 +/- 6.8 mm Hg. In multivariable analysis, significant determinants of progression included systolic BP (r = 0.16; p = 0.006) and pulse pressure (r = 0.14; p = 0.02). Patients with "hypertensive" average BP had a 12.0 +/- 3.6 mm3 (least-square mean +/- SE) increase in atheroma volume, those with "pre-hypertensive" BP had no major change (0.9 +/- 1.8 mm3), and those with "normal" BP had a decrease of 4.6 +/- 2.6 mm(3) (p < 0.001 by analysis of covariance; p < 0.05 for comparison of all pairs). CONCLUSIONS: The most favorable rate of progression of coronary atherosclerosis is observed in patients whose BP falls within the "normal" JNC-7 category (i.e., systolic BP <120 mm Hg and diastolic BP <80 mm Hg). This study suggests that in patients with coronary artery disease, the optimal BP goal may be substantially lower than the <140/90 mm Hg level.

Ischemic and bleeding outcomes in women treated with bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention: a subgroup analysis of the Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE)-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the contemporary era are poorly defined. The REPLACE-2 trial demonstrated that bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GpIIb-IIIa) blockade is noninferior to heparin with planned GpIIb-IIIa blockade during PCI, with regard to ischemic and bleeding end points. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to define sex-based clinical ischemic and bleeding outcomes from the REPLACE-2 trial. METHODS: A retrospective sex-based subgroup analysis of the REPLACE-2 trial comparing clinical ischemic and inhospital bleeding end points was conducted. RESULTS: Compared with men in REPLACE-2, women were older, had more diabetes, congestive heart failure and hypertension, and less prior revascularization and myocardial infarction. Female sex was a univariate predictor of death and bleeding complications. Among women treated with either bivalirudin or heparin, there was no significant difference in the individual or composite ischemic end points of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 30 days or 6 months. Protocol-defined major bleeding, minor bleeding, and access site bleeding were less frequent with bivalirudin compared with heparin. Multivariable modeling found no significant interactions between sexes, with the composite ischemic end point, major bleeding, or 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Women remain at higher risk for poorer outcomes with contemporary PCI, likely because of comorbidities. Bivalirudin with provisional GpIIb-IIIa confers similar protection against ischemic end points compared with heparin and planned GpIIb-IIIa blockade and significantly reduces the inherent bleeding risk of women undergoing contemporary PCI.

ST-segment resolution 60 minutes after combination treatment of abciximab with reteplase or reteplase alone for acute myocardial infarction (30-day mortality results from the resolution of ST-segment after reperfusion therapy substudy).

The combination of abciximab with thrombolytic therapy when treating acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction has been hypothesized to enhance microvascular perfusion. Resolution of ST-segment elevation after thrombolytic therapy is believed to be a marker of myocardial reperfusion and to predict mortality rate. Among 16,588 patients enrolled in the Fifth Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries in Acute Myocardial Infarction trial, 1,764 consecutive patients from selected centers had their study electrocardiograms evaluated by a core laboratory for ST-segment deviation resolution 60 minutes after treatment. Patients were categorized into 4 groups: complete resolution (>70%), partial resolution (<70% to 30%), no resolution (<30%), and worsening ST-segment deviation. Patients treated with reteplase or a combination of reteplase plus abciximab had similar rates of complete resolution (32% vs 34%), partial resolution (29% vs 27%), no resolution (15% vs 16%), and worsening ST-segment elevation (23 vs 23%; p = 0.59). The 30-day mortality rates in these 4 groups were 2.1%, 5.2%, 5.5%, and 8.1% (p <0.001). Even after accounting for baseline variables, incomplete ST-segment resolution (<70%) was associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days (adjusted hazard ratio 2.41, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 4.63, p <0.008). Thus, ST-segment resolution at 60 minutes was no different in patients treated with full-dose reteplase from those treated with a combination of abciximab and reteplase. Patients with >70% ST-segment resolution within 60 minutes had markedly decreased mortality rates, irrespective of treatment.

Bivalirudin with planned or provisional abciximab versus low-dose heparin and abciximab during percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of the Comparison of Abciximab Complications with Hirulog for Ischemic Events Trial (CACHET).

BACKGROUND: The direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin has previously been associated with better efficacy and lower hemorrhage risk than heparin during balloon angioplasty. This agent has not yet been tested with stenting or in combination with platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a pilot trial, 268 patients who underwent coronary intervention were randomized in 3 sequential phases to treatment with bivalirudin (with or without abciximab) or the control regimen of low-dose weight-adjusted heparin with abciximab. Patients in the bivalirudin arms received bivalirudin (1.0 mg/kg bolus, infusion of 2.5 mg/kg/h for 4 hours) plus abciximab in phase A, bivalirudin (0.5 mg/kg bolus, infusion of 1.75 mg/kg/h for the procedure duration) plus provisional ("rescue") abciximab in phase B, or bivalirudin (0.75 mg/kg bolus, infusion of 1.75 mg/kg/h for the procedure duration) plus provisional abciximab in phase C. Abciximab was necessitated on a provisional basis in 24% of the patients in the bivalirudin arms of phases B and C. A composite clinical endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, or major bleeding by 7 days occurred in 3.3%, 5.9%, 0, and 10.6% of the patients in the bivalirudin phase A, bivalirudin phase B, bivalirudin phase C, and heparin plus planned abciximab arms, respectively (P =.018 for the pooled bivalirudin groups versus the heparin group). CONCLUSION: Bivalirudin with planned or provisional abciximab may be at least as safe and effective as low-dose heparin plus abciximab during percutaneous coronary intervention.