TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (SYNERGY) trial
AU - White, Harvey D.
AU - Kleiman, Neal S.
AU - Mahaffey, Kenneth W.
AU - Lokhnygina, Yuliya
AU - Pieper, Karen S.
AU - Chiswell, Karen
AU - Cohen, Marc
AU - Harrington, Robert A.
AU - Chew, Derek P.
AU - Petersen, John L.
AU - Berdan, Lisa G.
AU - Aylward, Philip E.G.
AU - Nessel, Christopher C.
AU - Ferguson, James J.
AU - Califf, Robert M.
N1 - Funding Information:
The SYNERGY trial was funded by Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Bridgewater, NJ), a member of the sanofi-aventis Group. Sanofi-aventis provided research support for Drs White, Kleiman, Mahaffey, Califf, Chew, Cohen, Harrington, Aylward, and Ferguson; and speakers' honoraria for Drs White, Kleiman, Mahaffey, Califf, Cohen, Chew, Aylward, and Ferguson. Drs White, Kleiman, Mahaffey, Califf, Harrington, Chew, Aylward and Ferguson provided consultancy services for sanofi-aventis. Dr Nessel was employed by sanofi-aventis. Dr Lokhingygina, Ms. Pieper, Ms. Chiswell, and Ms. Berdan all received research funding from sanofi-aventis through the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Dr Petersen has no relationships to disclose. Aventis Pharmaceuticals collaborated with the steering committee and pincipal investigators on all aspects of the trial. Trial operations were run through the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Sanofi-aventis reviewed and provided comments on the manuscript but did not have veto power on submission or publication.
PY - 2006/12
Y1 - 2006/12
N2 - Background: Enoxaparin reduces ischemic events more effectively than unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients treated conservatively for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. The SYNERGY trial compared these agents in high-risk patients undergoing early invasive treatment. Enoxaparin was noninferior to UFH for the 30-day primary end point of death/myocardial infarction (MI), but modestly increased bleeding. Methods and Results: This article compares the outcomes of the 4687 SYNERGY patients (47%) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, who were randomized to receive enoxaparin or UFH. Antithrombotic therapy was administered prerandomization in 78%. Crossover (usually in the catheterization laboratory) to the alternative antithrombotic occurred in 14.6% of enoxaparin patients and 2.9% of UFH-treated patients (P < .0001). Stenting was performed in 86.3%. Abrupt vessel closure occurred in 1.3% of enoxaparin patients and 1.7% of UFH-treated patients (P = .318). The rates of death/MI were similar at 30 days (13.1% with enoxaparin vs 14.2% with UFH, P = .289). GUSTO severe bleeding occurred with similar frequency in both groups (1.5% vs 1.6%, P = .688). TIMI major bleeding was more common with enoxaparin (3.7% vs 2.5% with UFH, P = .028). Transfusions were more frequent with enoxaparin than with UFH (6.8% vs 5.4%, P = .047). TIMI major bleeding increased with crossover from enoxaparin to UFH (from 3.7% to 7.8%) and from UFH to enoxaparin (from 2.5% to 8.6%). Statistical adjustment to model reasons for crossover did not affect the overall safety and efficacy outcomes. Conclusions: In high-risk patients undergoing early percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome, enoxaparin avoids the need for monitoring and achieves similar effectiveness to UFH but is associated with more bleeding.
AB - Background: Enoxaparin reduces ischemic events more effectively than unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients treated conservatively for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. The SYNERGY trial compared these agents in high-risk patients undergoing early invasive treatment. Enoxaparin was noninferior to UFH for the 30-day primary end point of death/myocardial infarction (MI), but modestly increased bleeding. Methods and Results: This article compares the outcomes of the 4687 SYNERGY patients (47%) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, who were randomized to receive enoxaparin or UFH. Antithrombotic therapy was administered prerandomization in 78%. Crossover (usually in the catheterization laboratory) to the alternative antithrombotic occurred in 14.6% of enoxaparin patients and 2.9% of UFH-treated patients (P < .0001). Stenting was performed in 86.3%. Abrupt vessel closure occurred in 1.3% of enoxaparin patients and 1.7% of UFH-treated patients (P = .318). The rates of death/MI were similar at 30 days (13.1% with enoxaparin vs 14.2% with UFH, P = .289). GUSTO severe bleeding occurred with similar frequency in both groups (1.5% vs 1.6%, P = .688). TIMI major bleeding was more common with enoxaparin (3.7% vs 2.5% with UFH, P = .028). Transfusions were more frequent with enoxaparin than with UFH (6.8% vs 5.4%, P = .047). TIMI major bleeding increased with crossover from enoxaparin to UFH (from 3.7% to 7.8%) and from UFH to enoxaparin (from 2.5% to 8.6%). Statistical adjustment to model reasons for crossover did not affect the overall safety and efficacy outcomes. Conclusions: In high-risk patients undergoing early percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome, enoxaparin avoids the need for monitoring and achieves similar effectiveness to UFH but is associated with more bleeding.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845323043&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.08.002
DO - 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.08.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 17161049
AN - SCOPUS:33845323043
SN - 0002-8703
VL - 152
SP - 1042
EP - 1050
JO - American Heart Journal
JF - American Heart Journal
IS - 6
ER -