Université d'Auvergne Clermont1 | CNRS

.

Comparison of bleeding complications and 3-year survival with low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin for acute myocardial infarction: the FAST-MI registry.

TitleComparison of bleeding complications and 3-year survival with low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin for acute myocardial infarction: the FAST-MI registry.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2012
AuthorsPuymirat, É., N. Aissaoui, J. Silvain, L. Bonello, T. Cuisset, P. Motreff, V. Bataille, E. Durand, Y. Cottin, T. Simon, and N. Danchin
Corporate AuthorsFAST-MI investigators
JournalArchives of cardiovascular diseases
Volume105
Issue6-7
Pagination347-54
Date Published2012 Jun-Jul
ISSN1875-2128
KeywordsAged, Aged, 80 and over, Blood Transfusion, Chi-Square Distribution, Disease-Free Survival, Female, Fibrinolytic Agents, France, Hemorrhage, Heparin, Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight, Hospital Mortality, Humans, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Male, Middle Aged, Multivariate Analysis, Myocardial Infarction, Odds Ratio, Propensity Score, Proportional Hazards Models, Recurrence, Registries, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical studies suggest that low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) could be an effective and safe alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH) for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

AIMS: To assess the impact of anticoagulant choice (LMWV vs UFH) on bleeding, the need for blood transfusion and 3-year clinical outcomes in AMI patients from the FAST-MI registry.

METHODS: FAST-MI was a nationwide registry compiled in France over 1 month in 2005, which included consecutive AMI patients admitted to an intensive care unit less than 48 hours from symptom onset in 223 participating centres.

RESULTS: A total of 2854 patients treated with heparins were included. The risks of major bleeding or transfusion (3.0% vs 7.0%) and in-hospital death (3.2% vs 9.2%) were lower with LMWH compared with UFH, a difference that persisted after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.76 and OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.76, respectively). Three-year survival, and stroke and reinfarction-free survival risks were also higher with LMWH compared with UFH (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.87 and HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.85, respectively). In two cohorts of patients matched on propensity score for receiving LMWH and with similar baseline characteristics (834 patients per group), major bleeding and transfusion rates were lower while the 3-year survival rate was significantly higher in patients receiving LMWH.

CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the use of LMWH in AMI patients may have a better benefit/risk profile than UFH, in terms of bleeding, need for transfusion and long-term survival.

DOI10.1016/j.acvd.2012.04.002
Alternate JournalArch Cardiovasc Dis