Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 69(06): 511-517
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716390
Original Cardiovascular

Comparison of Safety between Different Kinds of Heparins in Patients Receiving Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation

Xiaonan Guan
1   Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Mulei Chen
1   Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Yanbing Li
1   Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Jianjun Zhang
1   Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Li Xu
1   Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Hao Sun
1   Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Dapeng Zhang
1   Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Lefeng Wang
1   Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
,
Xinchun Yang
1   Center of Cardiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of low molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients receiving intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP).

Materials and Methods We retrospectively analyzed a total of 344 patients receiving IABP for cardiogenic shock, severe heart failure, ventricular septal rupture, or mitral valve prolapse due to AMI. A total of 161 patients received UFH (a bolus injection 70 U/kg immediately after IABP, followed by infusion at a rate of 15 U/kg/hour and titration to for 50 to 70 seconds of activated partial thromboplastin time. A total of 183 patients received LMWH (subcutaneous injection of 1.0 mg/kg every 12 hours for 5 to 7 days and 1.0 mg/kg every 24 hours thereafter). Events of ischemia, arterial thrombosis or embolism, and bleeding during IABP were evaluated. Major bleeding was defined as a hemoglobin decrease by >50 g/L (vs. prior to IABP) or bleeding that caused hemodynamic shock or life-threatening or requiring blood transfusion.

Results Subjects receiving UFH and LMWH did not differ in baseline characteristics. Ischemia was noted in five (3.1%) and two (1.1%) subjects in UFH and LMWH groups, respectively. Arterial thromboembolism occurred in three (1.9%) subjects in the UFH group, but not in the LMWH group. Logistic regression analysis failed to reveal an association between ischemia or bleeding with heparin type. Major bleeding occurred in 16 (9.9%) and six (3.3%) patients in the UFH and LWMH groups, respectively (p = 0.014). Regression analysis indicated that LMWH is associated with less major bleeding.

Conclusion LMWH could reduce the risk of major bleeding in patients receiving IABP. Whether LMWH could reduce arterial thromboembolism needs further investigation.

Keywords

low-molecular-weight heparin - unfractionated heparin - acute myocardial infarction - intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation

Authors' Contributions

M.C. dedicated to study design. X.G., Y.L., and L.X. supported in collection of data. X.G., H.S., D.Z., and L.W. performed data analysis/interpretation. X.G., M.C., X.Y. cooperated in writing (revising) of the manuscript.




Publication History

Received: 02 March 2020

Accepted: 24 July 2020

Article published online:
30 September 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, Lessard D, Yarzebski J. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective. Circulation 2009; 119 (09) 1211-1219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hasdai D, Harrington RA, Hochman JS. et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade and outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36 (03) 685-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F-J. et al. Intraaortic Balloon Pump in cardiogenic shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial investigators. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2013; 382 (9905): 1638-1645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jacob AS, Steingart RH, Schweger MJ. Heparin elimination following continuous infusion during intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1985; 11 (04) 389-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Harrington RA, Becker RC, Cannon CP. et al. Antithrombotic therapy for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th edition). Chest 2008; 133 (6, Suppl) 670S-707S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Murphy SA, Gibson CM, Morrow DA. et al. Efficacy and safety of the low-molecular weight heparin enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin across the acute coronary syndrome spectrum: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2007; 28 (17) 2077-2086
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Montalescot G, Zeymer U, Silvain J. et al. ATOLL Investigators. Intravenous enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the international randomised open-label ATOLL trial. Lancet 2011; 378 (9792): 693-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Montalescot G, Ellis SG, de Belder MA. et al. Facilitated INtervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events Investigators. Enoxaparin in primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention A formal prospective nonrandomized substudy of the FINESSE trial (Facilitated INtervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3 (02) 203-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Palamaner Subash Shantha G, Kumar AA, Sethi M, Khanna RC, Pancholy SB. Efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin compared to unfractionated heparin for chronic outpatient hemodialysis in end stage renal disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ 2015; 3: e835
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Klejna K, Naumnik B, Koc-Żórawska E, Myśliwiec M. Effect of unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparin on OPG, sRANKL, and von Willebrand factor concentrations during hemodialysis. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2014; 20 (04) 433-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yan HB, Xiang DC, Liu HM. et al. Chinese experts' consensus: ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction prehospital thrombolytic therapy. Chinese Journal of the Frontiers of Medical Science 2018; 10: 6-15 (electronic version)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS. et al. Executive Group on behalf of the Joint European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)/World Heart Federation (WHF) Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72 (18) 2231-2264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Prondzinsky R, Lemm H, Swyter M. et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP SHOCK Trial for attenuation of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Crit Care Med 2010; 38 (01) 152-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W. et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J 2018; 39 (33) 3021-3104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cosentino F, Grant PJ, Aboyans V. et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD. Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (02) 255-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL. et al. Authors/Task Force Members, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG), ESC National Cardiac Societies. 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: Lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Atherosclerosis 2019; 290: 140-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Meharwal ZS, Trehan N. Vascular complications of intra-aortic balloon insertion in patients undergoing coronary reavscularization: analysis of 911 cases. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002; 21 (04) 741-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Collet J-P, Huber K, Cohen M. et al. ATOLL Investigators. A direct comparison of intravenous enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (from the ATOLL trial). Am J Cardiol 2013; 112 (09) 1367-1372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Silvain J, Beygui F, Barthélémy O. et al. Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2012; 344: e553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Navarese EP, De Luca G, Castriota F. et al. Low-molecular-weight heparins vs. unfractionated heparin in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 2011; 9 (10) 1902-1915
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ageno W, Bosch J, Cucherat M, Eikelboom JW. Nadroparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in nonsurgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2016; 42 (01) 90-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Subherwal S, Bach RG, Chen AY. et al. Baseline risk of major bleeding in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) Bleeding Score. Circulation 2009; 119 (14) 2168-2194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kadakia MB, Desai NR, Alexander KP. et al. National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Use of anticoagulant agents and risk of bleeding among patients admitted with myocardial infarction: a report from the NCDR ACTION Registry--GWTG (National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry--Get With the Guidelines). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3 (11) 1166-1177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kantrowitz A, Tjønneland S, Freed PS, Phillips SJ, Butner AN, Sherman Jr JL. Initial clinical experience with intraaortic balloon pumping in cardiogenic shock. JAMA 1968; 203 (02) 113-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD. et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69 (03) 278-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Patel MR, Thiele H, Smalling RW. et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled study of mechanical left ventricular unloading with counterpulsation to reduce infarct size prepercutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the Counterpulsation Reduces Infarct Size Acute Myocardial Infarction trial. Am Heart J 2011; 162 (01) 47-55.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pucher PH, Cummings IG, Shipolini AR, McCormack DJ. Is heparin needed for patients with an intra-aortic balloon pump?. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2012; 15 (01) 136-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Arafa OE, Pedersen TH, Svennevig JL, Fosse E, Geiran OR. Vascular complications of the intraaortic balloon pump in patients undergoing open heart operations: 15-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 67 (03) 645-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kuki S, Taniguchi K, Masai T, Yoshida K, Yamamoto K, Matsuda H. Usefulness of the low profile “True 8” intra-aortic balloon pumping catheter for preventing limb lschemia. ASAIO J 2001; 47 (06) 611-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jiang CY, Zhao LL, Wang JA, Mohammod B. Anticoagulation therapy in intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation: does IABP really need anti-coagulation?. J Zhejiang Univ Sci 2003; 4 (05) 607-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Laish-Farkash A, Hod H, Matetzky S, Guetta V. Safety of intra-aortic balloon pump using glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists. Clin Cardiol 2009; 32 (02) 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cooper HA, Thompson E, Panza JA. The role of heparin anticoagulation during intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in the coronary care unit. Acute Card Care 2008; 10 (04) 214-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lim W, Cook DJ, Crowther MA. Safety and efficacy of low molecular weight heparins for hemodialysis in patients with end-stage renal failure: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15 (12) 3192-3206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Zeymer U, Bueno H, Granger CB. et al. Acute Cardiovascular Care Association position statement for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a document of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2020; 9 (02) 183-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T. et al. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation 2019; 139 (10) 1249-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Schiller P, Hellgren L, Vikholm P. Survival after refractory cardiogenic shock is comparable in patients with Impella and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation when adjusted for SAVE score. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2019; 8 (04) 329-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wernly B, Seelmaier C, Leistner D. et al. Mechanical circulatory support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump or medical treatment in cardiogenic shock-a critical appraisal of current data. Clin Res Cardiol 2019; 108 (11) 1249-1257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Vlasin M, Dvorak M, Dvorakova M, Rauser P, Lexmaulova L, Gregor Z. Direct comparison of enoxaparin and nadroparin in a rabbit model of arterial thrombosis prevention. Thromb Res 2010; 126 (01) 56-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Cvirn G, Hoerl G, Tafeit E. et al. Effects of nadroparin, enoxaparin, and unfractionated heparin on endogenous formation of factor Xa and IIa and on thrombelastometry profiles in cord versus adult blood. Neonatology 2011; 100 (01) 23-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Naumnik B, Rydzewska-Rosołowska A, Myśliwiec M. Different effects of enoxaparin, nadroparin, and dalteparin on plasma TFPI during hemodialysis: a prospective crossover randomized study. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2011; 17 (05) 480-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar