Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.

<h4>Background</h4>The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI.<h4>Objectives</h4>We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with hepa...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amir Faour, Nicholas Collins, Trent Williams, Arshad Khan, Craig P Juergens, Sidney Lo, Darren L Walters, Derek P Chew, John K French
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:
R
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/3da8d2a609f849eabf83cc2f6167f89e
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:3da8d2a609f849eabf83cc2f6167f89e
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:3da8d2a609f849eabf83cc2f6167f89e2021-12-02T20:13:29ZReperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0259148https://doaj.org/article/3da8d2a609f849eabf83cc2f6167f89e2021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259148https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI.<h4>Objectives</h4>We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in patients undergoing rescue PCI.<h4>Methods</h4>Between 2010-2015, we randomly assigned 83 patients undergoing rescue PCI to bivalirudin (n = 42) or heparin ± GPIs (n = 41). The primary safety endpoint was any ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) bleeding at 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was infarct size measured by peak troponin levels as a multiple of the local upper reference limit (Tn/URL). Secondary endpoints included periprocedural change in haemoglobin adjusted for red cells transfused, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding, ST-segment recovery and infarct size determined by the Selvester QRS score.<h4>Results</h4>The trial was terminated due to slow recruitment and futility after an interim analysis of 83 patients. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 6 (14%) patients in the bivalirudin group (4.8% GPIs) and 3 (7.3%) in the heparin ± GPIs group (54% GPIs) (risk ratio, 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-7.3, P = 0.48). Infarct size was similar between the two groups (mean Tn/URL, 730 [±675] for bivalirudin, versus 984 [±1585] for heparin ± GPIs, difference, 254, 95% CI, -283-794, P = 0.86). There was a smaller decrease in the periprocedural haemoglobin level with bivalirudin than heparin ± GPIs (-7.5% [±15] versus -14% [±17], difference, -6.5%, 95% CI, -0.83-14, P = 0.0067). The rate of complete (≥70%) ST-segment recovery post-PCI was higher in patients randomised to heparin ± GPIs compared with bivalirudin.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Whether bivalirudin compared with heparin ± GPI reduces bleeding in rescue PCI could not be determined. Slow recruitment and futility in the context of lower-than-expected bleeding event rates led to the termination of this trial (ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12610000152022).Amir FaourNicholas CollinsTrent WilliamsArshad KhanCraig P JuergensSidney LoDarren L WaltersDerek P ChewJohn K FrenchPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 10, p e0259148 (2021)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Medicine
R
Science
Q
spellingShingle Medicine
R
Science
Q
Amir Faour
Nicholas Collins
Trent Williams
Arshad Khan
Craig P Juergens
Sidney Lo
Darren L Walters
Derek P Chew
John K French
Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.
description <h4>Background</h4>The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI.<h4>Objectives</h4>We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in patients undergoing rescue PCI.<h4>Methods</h4>Between 2010-2015, we randomly assigned 83 patients undergoing rescue PCI to bivalirudin (n = 42) or heparin ± GPIs (n = 41). The primary safety endpoint was any ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) bleeding at 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was infarct size measured by peak troponin levels as a multiple of the local upper reference limit (Tn/URL). Secondary endpoints included periprocedural change in haemoglobin adjusted for red cells transfused, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding, ST-segment recovery and infarct size determined by the Selvester QRS score.<h4>Results</h4>The trial was terminated due to slow recruitment and futility after an interim analysis of 83 patients. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 6 (14%) patients in the bivalirudin group (4.8% GPIs) and 3 (7.3%) in the heparin ± GPIs group (54% GPIs) (risk ratio, 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-7.3, P = 0.48). Infarct size was similar between the two groups (mean Tn/URL, 730 [±675] for bivalirudin, versus 984 [±1585] for heparin ± GPIs, difference, 254, 95% CI, -283-794, P = 0.86). There was a smaller decrease in the periprocedural haemoglobin level with bivalirudin than heparin ± GPIs (-7.5% [±15] versus -14% [±17], difference, -6.5%, 95% CI, -0.83-14, P = 0.0067). The rate of complete (≥70%) ST-segment recovery post-PCI was higher in patients randomised to heparin ± GPIs compared with bivalirudin.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Whether bivalirudin compared with heparin ± GPI reduces bleeding in rescue PCI could not be determined. Slow recruitment and futility in the context of lower-than-expected bleeding event rates led to the termination of this trial (ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12610000152022).
format article
author Amir Faour
Nicholas Collins
Trent Williams
Arshad Khan
Craig P Juergens
Sidney Lo
Darren L Walters
Derek P Chew
John K French
author_facet Amir Faour
Nicholas Collins
Trent Williams
Arshad Khan
Craig P Juergens
Sidney Lo
Darren L Walters
Derek P Chew
John K French
author_sort Amir Faour
title Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.
title_short Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.
title_full Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.
title_fullStr Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.
title_full_unstemmed Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.
title_sort reperfusion after fibrinolytic therapy (raft): an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate 2021
url https://doaj.org/article/3da8d2a609f849eabf83cc2f6167f89e
work_keys_str_mv AT amirfaour reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT nicholascollins reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT trentwilliams reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT arshadkhan reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT craigpjuergens reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT sidneylo reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT darrenlwalters reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT derekpchew reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT johnkfrench reperfusionafterfibrinolytictherapyraftanopenlabelmulticentrerandomisedcontrolledtrialofbivalirudinversusheparininrescuepercutaneouscoronaryintervention
_version_ 1718374760134475776