Literature DB >> 8610601

Overview of randomized trials of intravenous heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy.

K W Mahaffey1, C B Granger, R Collins, C M O'Connor, E M Ohman, S D Bleich, J J Col, R M Califf.   

Abstract

Intravenous heparin is routinely given after thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction in the United States and in some, but by no means all, other countries. Several trials have documented improved infarct-artery patency in patients treated with heparin; however, none was large enough individually to assess the effect of heparin on clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic overview of the 6 randomized controlled trials (1,735 patients) to summarize the available data concerning the risks and benefits of intravenous heparin versus no heparin after thrombolytic therapy. Mortality before hospital discharge was 5.1% for patients allocated to intravenous heparin compared with 5.6% for controls (relative risk reduction of 9%, odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.39). Similar rates of recurrent ischemia and reinfarction were observed among those allocated to heparin therapy or control. The rates of total stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and severe bleeding were similar in patients allocated to heparin; however, the risk of any severity of bleeding was significantly higher (22.7% vs 16.2%; odds ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.98). There was no significant difference in the observed effects of heparin between patients receiving tissue-type plasminogen activator and those receiving streptokinase or anisoylated plasminogen streptokinase activator complex, or between patients who did and did not receive aspirin. The findings of this overview demonstrate that insufficient clinical outcome data are available to support or to refute the routine use of intravenous heparin therapy after thrombolysis. It is not known if these findings are due to lack of statistical power, inappropriate levels of anticoagulation, or lack of benefit of intravenous heparin. Large randomized studies of heparin (and of new antithrombotic regimens) are needed to establish the role of such therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8610601     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)89305-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  6 in total

Review 1.  Emergency management of acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  S Maxwell
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 2.  Pre PCI hospital antithrombotic therapy for ST elevation myocardial infarction: striving for consensus.

Authors:  S Michael Gharacholou; Brenda J Larson; Christian C Zuver; Ryan J Wubben; Giorgio Gimelli; Amish N Raval
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 3.  Antithrombotic therapy in acute coronary syndromes: guidelines translated for the clinician.

Authors:  S Michael Gharacholou; Renato D Lopes; Jeffrey B Washam; L Kristin Newby; Stefan K James; John H Alexander
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 4.  Fortnightly review: anticoagulation in heart disease.

Authors:  S M Hardman; M R Cowie
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-23

5.  Clinical effects of anticoagulant therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: systematic overview of randomised trials.

Authors:  R Collins; S MacMahon; M Flather; C Baigent; L Remvig; S Mortensen; P Appleby; J Godwin; S Yusuf; R Peto
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-09-14

Review 6.  New anticoagulant strategies in ST elevation myocardial infarction: trials and clinical implications.

Authors:  Conor J McCann; Ian B A Menown
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2008
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.