Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfraciionated heparin in the pharmacoinvasive management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Insights from the TRANSFER-AMI trial

摘要

Aims An early invasive strategy after fibrinolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) improves outcomes, but the relative efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) as part of this approach are unknown. Methods and Results In the TRANSFER-AMI trial, patients with high-risk STEMI received fibrinolysis and were then randomized to either standard treatment or to immediate transfer for coronary angiography. In this substudy, the outcome of patients aged <75 years treated with enoxaparin is compared with that of patients who received UFH. Logistic regression and propensity score models were used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these anticoagulants. Enoxaparin was administered to 498 patients, and UFH, to 448 patients, at the time of fibrinolysis. Approximately 50% in each group were randomized to the early invasive strategy. The primary composite end point of death, reinfarction, recurrent ischemia, new or worsening heart failure, or cardiogenic shock at 30 days occurred in 1 1.9% and 1 1.6% of the patients who received enoxaparin and UFH, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 0.95 [95% Cl 0.60-1.51], P = .84). Enoxaparin use was associated with more access site bleeding (5.0% vs 2.9%, P = .04) and mild bleeding (12.1% vs 7.8%, P = .03). Conclusions Among high-risk patients with STEMI undergoing early or late transfer for cardiac catheterization after fibrinolysis, enoxaparin was associated with similar efficacy compared with UFH, but there was more minor bleeding with enoxaparin (ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT00164190).