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.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||American Heart Journal|
|State||Published - Dec 2006|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine