The comparative safety of abciximab versus eptifibatide in patients on dialysis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2).

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the patterns of use and outcomes associated with eptifibatide and abciximab administration among dialysis patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Contraindicated medications are frequently administered to dialysis patients undergoing PCI often resulting in adverse outcomes. Eptifibatide is a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor that is often used during PCI and is contraindicated in dialysis. METHODS: We included dialysis patients who underwent PCI from January 2010 to September 2015 at 47 hospitals in Michigan. We compared outcomes between patients who received eptifibatide compared with abciximab. Both groups required concurrent treatment with unfractionated heparin only. In-hospital outcomes included repeat PCI, bleeding, major bleeding, need for transfusion, and death. Optimal full matching was used to adjust for non-random drug administration. RESULTS: Of 177 963 patients who underwent PCI, 4303 (2.4%) were on dialysis. Among those, 384 (8.9%) received eptifibatide and 100 (2.3%) received abciximab. Prior to matching, patients who received eptifibatide had higher pre-procedural hemoglobin levels (11.3 g/dL vs. 10.7 g/dL; P < 0.001) and less frequently had a history of myocardial infarction (36.5% vs. 52.0%; P = 0.005). After matching, there were no significant differences in in-hospital outcomes between eptifibatide and abciximab including transfusion (aOR: 1.15; 95%CI: 0.55-2.40; P = 0.70), bleeding (1.47; 0.64-3.40; P = 0.36), major bleeding (4.68; 0.42-52.3; P = 0.21), repeat PCI (0.38; 0.03-4.23; P = 0.43), and death (1.53; 0.2-9.05; P = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being contraindicated in dialysis, eptifibatide was used approximately 3.5 times more frequently than abciximab among dialysis patients undergoing PCI but was associated with similar in-hospital outcomes.

The comparative safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in patients on dialysis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan cardiovascular consortium.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients are at a higher risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, due to their exclusion from randomized clinical trials, the optimal antithrombotic regimen for this population remains unknown. We sought to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin monotherapy versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) monotherapy in dialysis patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: We included dialysis patients who underwent PCI in a multicenter registry between January 2010 and September 2015 at 47 Michigan hospitals. We compared in-hospital outcomes between bivalirudin versus UFH; excluding those treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Optimal full matching was used to account for the nonrandom use of these drugs. RESULTS: Of 177,963 patients who underwent PCI, 4,303 (2.4%) were on dialysis. Among those, 1,257 (29.2%) received bivalirudin monotherapy and 2,112 (49.1%) received UFH monotherapy. Patients treated with bivalirudin had fewer comorbidities. After matching, there were no significant differences in outcomes between those who received bivalirudin versus UFH: bleeding (adjusted odds ratio: 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-1.07; P = 0.093); major bleeding (0.81; 0.19-3.50; P = 0.77); transfusion (1.01; 0.77-1.33; P = 0.96); repeat PCI (0.57; 0.14-2.24; P = 0.42); stent thrombosis (0.56; 0.05-5.83; P = 0.63); and death (0.84; 0.46-1.51; P = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences in in-hospital outcomes between bivalirudin and UFH monotherapy among dialysis patients undergoing PCI. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the optimal anticoagulant regimen for this population. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.