Heparin versus bivalirudin for non-primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A post-Hoc analysis of the CPORT-E trial.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare bivalirudin to heparin during non-primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: The optimal anticoagulant to support PCI remains uncertain. METHODS: We performed a propensity score-based analysis comparing clinical outcomes of patients receiving heparin to those receiving bivalirudin during non-primary PCI. RESULTS: Of 18,867 patients in the Cardiovascular Patient Outcomes Research Team Non-Primary PCI (CPORT-E) trial, we selected 7,913 patients undergoing non-staged PCI of whom 57.3% received heparin and 42.7% received bivalirudin. In-hospital myocardial infarction occurred in 4.4% of patients receiving bivalirudin and 3.0% of patients receiving heparin (relative risk [RR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.1, P = 0.022); this difference persisted at 6 weeks (5.0% vs. 3.6%, RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.8, P = 0.041). There was no difference in all-cause mortality either in-hospital (0.2% vs. 0.1% for heparin vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.887) or at 6 weeks (0.5% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.567). In-hospital bleeding requiring transfusion occurred in 0.9% of patients receiving bivalirudin and 1.9% of patients receiving heparin (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.7, P <0.001), but there was no difference at 6 weeks (2.7% for heparin vs. 1.9% for bivalirudin, RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0, P = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing non-primary PCI at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery, bivalirudin was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital bleeding requiring transfusion and an increased risk of in-hospital MI compared to heparin. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.