Acute kidney injury in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management treated with bivalirudin vs. unfractionated heparin: insights from the MATRIX trial.

AIMS: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a critical complication among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive management. The value of adjunctive antithrombotic strategies, such as bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) on the risk of AKI is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 7213 patients enrolled in the MATRIX-Antithrombin and Treatment Duration study, 128 subjects were excluded due to incomplete information on serum creatinine (sCr) or end-stage renal disease on dialysis treatment. The primary endpoint was AKI defined as an absolute (>0.5 mg/dL) or a relative (>25%) increase in sCr. AKI occurred in 601 patients (16.9%) treated with bivalirudin and 616 patients (17.4%) treated with UFH [odds ratio (OR): 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.09; P = 0.58]. A >25% sCr increase was observed in 597 patients (16.8%) with bivalirudin and 616 patients (17.4%) with UFH (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.85-1.08; P = 0.50), whereas a >0.5 mg/dL absolute sCr increase occurred in 176 patients (5.0%) with bivalirudin vs. 189 patients (5.4%) with UFH (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.75-1.14; P = 0.46). By implementing the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria, the risk of AKI was not significantly different between bivalirudin and UFH groups (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.72-1.07; P = 0.21). Subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint suggested a benefit with bivalirudin in patients randomized to femoral access. CONCLUSION: Among ACS patients undergoing invasive management, the risk of AKI was not significantly lower with bivalirudin compared with UFH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01433627.

Post-Procedural Bivalirudin Infusion at Full or Low Regimen in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The value of prolonged bivalirudin infusion after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with or without ST-segment elevation remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of a full or low post-PCI bivalirudin regimen in ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation. METHODS: The MATRIX program assigned bivalirudin to patients without or with a post-PCI infusion at either a full (1.75 mg/kg/h for ≤4 h) or reduced (0.25 mg/kg/h for ≤6 h) regimen at the operator's discretion. The primary endpoint was the 30-day composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, or major bleeding). RESULTS: Among 3,610 patients assigned to bivalirudin, 1,799 were randomized to receive and 1,811 not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Post-PCI full bivalirudin was administered in 612 (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], n = 399; non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes [NSTE-ACS], n = 213), whereas the low-dose regimen was administered in 1,068 (STEMI, n = 519; NSTE-ACS, n = 549) patients. The primary outcome did not differ in STEMI or NSTE-ACS patients who received or did not receive post-PCI bivalirudin. However, full compared with low bivalirudin regimen remained associated with a significant reduction of the primary endpoint after multivariable (rate ratio: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.35; p < 0.001) or propensity score (rate ratio: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.26; p < 0.001) adjustment. Full post-PCI bivalirudin was associated with improved outcomes consistently across ACS types compared with the no post-PCI infusion or heparin groups. CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation, the primary endpoint did not differ with or without post-PCI bivalirudin infusion but a post-PCI full dose was associated with improved outcomes when compared with no or low-dose post-PCI infusion or heparin (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS: We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING: The Medicines Company and Terumo.

A myocardial infarction may disclose patent foramen ovale.

We report a case of a 19-year-old man presenting with an acute myocardial infarction. Coronary arteries were free from atherosclerotic disease. A patent foramen ovale (PFO) was detected on contrast echocardiography with right-to-left shunting during Valsalva maneuver. No other embolic source was identified. We closed the patient's PFO with a 23-mm PFO occluder. No residual intracardiac shunt was found on contrast transthoracic echocardiography at 1-year follow-up and no recurrent paradoxical embolization occurred.