Gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes: incidence, predictors, and clinical implications: analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: GIB is a potential hemorrhagic complication in patients with ACS treated with antithrombotic and/or antiplatelet medications. The clinical outcomes associated with GIB in this setting have not been systematically studied. METHODS: In the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, 13,819 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS, enrolled at 450 centers in 17 countries between August 2003 and December 2005, were randomized to the open-label use of 1 of 3 antithrombin regimens (heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or bivalirudin monotherapy). RESULTS: GIB within 30 days occurred in 178 patients (1.3%). Older age, baseline anemia, longer duration of study drug administration before angiogram, smoking, ST-segment deviation>or=1 mm, and diabetes were identified as independent predictors of GIB. On multivariable analysis, GIB was strongly associated with 30-day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.87 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.61 to 9.08], p<0.0001), cardiac mortality (HR: 5.35 [IQR 2.71 to 10.59], p<0.0001), and composite ischemia (HR: 1.94 [IQR 1.14 to 3.30], p=0.014), as well as with 1-year all-cause mortality (HR: 3.97 [IQR 2.64 to 5.99], p<0.0001), cardiac mortality (HR: 3.77 [IQR 2.14 to 6.63], p<0.0001), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.74 [IQR 1.01 to 3.02], p=0.047), and composite ischemia (HR: 1.90 [IQR 1.37 to 2.64], p=0.0001). Patients who experienced GIB had significantly higher rates of stent thrombosis compared with patients without GIB (5.8% vs. 2.4%, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: GIB is a serious condition in the scenario of ACS and is independently associated with mortality and ischemic complications.

Late safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 2-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess, after 2 years of follow-up, the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients with native coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Early drug-eluting stents were associated with a small but significant incidence of very late stent thrombosis (VLST), occurring >1 year after the index procedure. The ZES has shown encouraging results in clinical trials. METHODS: The ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions), a randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial (n = 1,548) compared ZES versus PES in patients with single de novo coronary lesions. Two-year follow-up was obtained in 96.0% of ZES and 95.4% of PES patients. The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF), and safety end points included Academic Research Consortium-defined stent thrombosis. Economic end points analyzed included quality-adjusted survival, medical costs, and relative cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES. RESULTS: The TVF at 2 years was similar in ZES and PES patients (11.1% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.232). There were fewer myocardial infarctions (MIs) in ZES patients (p = 0.022), due to fewer periprocedural non-Q-wave MIs and fewer late MIs between 1 and 2 years. Late MIs were associated with increased VLST (PES: 6 vs. ZES: 1; p = 0.069). Target lesion revascularization was similar comparing ZES with PES (5.9% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.295), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (5.2% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.896). The cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES was similar. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years of follow-up, ZES demonstrated efficacy and cost-effectiveness comparable to PES, with fewer MIs and a trend toward less VLST. (The ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial: A Trial of a Coronary Stent System in Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269).

Economic evaluation of bivalirudin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition versus heparin with routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition for early invasive management of acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the economic impact of several anticoagulation strategies for moderate- and high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients managed invasively. BACKGROUND: The ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial demonstrated that bivalirudin monotherapy yields similar rates of ischemic complications and less bleeding than regimens incorporating glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (GPI) for moderate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. METHODS: In ACUITY, 7,851 U.S. patients were randomized to: 1) heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) + GPI; 2) bivalirudin + GPI; or 3) bivalirudin monotherapy. Patients assigned to GPI were also randomized to upstream GPI before catheterization or selective GPI only with percutaneous coronary intervention. Resource use data were collected prospectively through 30-day follow-up. Costs were estimated with standard methods including resource-based accounting, hospital billing data, and the Medicare fee schedule. RESULTS: At 30 days, ischemic events were similar for all groups. Major bleeding was reduced with bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin + GPI or bivalirudin + GPI (p < 0.001). Length of stay was lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy or bivalirudin + catheterization laboratory GPI (p = 0.02). Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital stay costs were lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy (mean difference range: $184 to $1,081, p < 0.001 for overall comparison) and at 30 days (mean difference range: $123 to $938, p = 0.005). Regression modeling demonstrated that hospital savings were primarily due to less major and minor bleeding with bivalirudin ($8,658/event and $2,282/event, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among U.S. patients in the ACUITY trial, bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin + GPI resulted in similar protection from ischemic events, reduced bleeding, and shorter length of stay. Despite higher drug costs, aggregate hospital and 30-day costs were lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy. Thus bivalirudin monotherapy seems to be an economically attractive alternative to heparin + GPI for patients with moderate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes [ACS]; NCT00093158).