Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Medicine

formerly Central European Journal of Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Darzynkiewicz, Zbigniew


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.221

CiteScore 2018: 1.01

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.329
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.479

ICV 2017: 152.94

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2391-5463
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 13, Issue 1

Issues

Volume 10 (2015)

The efficacy and safety of enoxaparin: a meta-analysis

Wang Hai-long / Pang Xiao-hua / Yang Jian-jun
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Cardiology, Chongqing Three Gorges Central Hospital, 165# Xincheng road Wanzhou, Chongqing, China
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-09-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2018-0054

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of enoxaparin (ENOX) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains unaddressed. The primary endpoint evaluated was myocardial infarction (MI) or death. The secondary endpoint was defined as major bleeding complications. Studies comparing the differences in the efficacy and safety of ENOX versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in PCI for the treatment of STEMI were evaluated. We presented the odds ratios for individual studies and performed heterogeneity, quality assessment, and publication bias analysis. This meta-analysis examined four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 5585 patients were included (2334 ENOX patients and 3251 UFH patients). The follow-up period of the endpoints was 30 or 90 days. Compared with UFH, ENOX significantly reduced the incidence of MI (OR, 0.74; P<0.01) and death (OR, 0.74; P<0.03), while there was no significant difference between the two treatments on major bleeding (OR,0.81; P=0.33). The findings from this meta-analysis suggested that the efficacy and safety of ENOX in the treatment of STEMI patients undergoing PCI were significantly better than patients treated with UFH. According to this meta-analysis, ENOX is the preferred anticoagulant for STEMI patients receiving PCI compared to UFH.

Keywords: Enoxaparin; Percutaneous coronary intervention; ST-elevation myocardial infarction; Unfractionated heparin; Meta-analysis

1 Introduction

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the standard anticoagulant regimen for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The use of UFH undergoing PCI is based on the recommended evidence level of C in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology [1,2]. However, this recommendation is not based on outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but rather from the common clinical practice of administering anticoagulant therapy for STEMI patients undergoing PCI.

There are few available studies on the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin (ENOX) in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI [3] and the clinical application of the treatment has been controversial. Recently, there has been analyses of RCTs comparing ENOX with UFH in STEMI populations undergoing PCI [4,5,6,7]. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the differences in the efficacy and safety of ENOX compared with UFH for PCI in STEMI patients.

2 Methods

2.1 Search strategy

The present meta-analysis was performed according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement (PRISMA) guidelines [8]. Two investigators used the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases to independently search English language entries published prior to April 2018. Subject words or keywords were applied to select articles included the following terms: “STEMI or ST elevation myocardial infarction,” “PCI or percutaneous coronary intervention,” “Heparin,” “enoxaparin” Publication language was limited to English.

2.2 Study selection

We screened out RCTs of STEMI patients who underwent PCI for ENOX versus UFH. This study included only RCTs of STEMI patients undergoing PCI. The measurement period for the follow-up data was 30 or 90 days. We excluded studies whose follow-up period was not 30 or 90 days, studies that were not RCTs, studies involving stable angina pectoris or non ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients, and studies in which patients did not undergo PCI. We had no restrictions on the qualification of the research results.

2.3 Data extraction and quality assessment

Three reviewers (HL Wang, JJ Yang, and XH Pang) independently extracted the following data: first author, research design, publication year, sample size, clinical baseline characteristics, interventions, follow-up period, and outcomes data. The primary endpoint was defined as death or MI, while the secondary endpoint was defined as major bleeding complications. All four studies reported death or MI, and only three have reported major bleeding [4,6,7].

2.4 Statistical analysis

Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane back-review group in each study [9]. Data analysis was completed under the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA Statement. I2 statistical analysis was applied to assess statistical heterogeneity between studies. High, moderate, and low heterogeneity were respectively defined as I2 values of 75%, 50%, and 25%. When I2 values were less than 25%, the fixed-effects model was performed [10], and the fixed-effect model was accepted. Hypothesis testing results were defined as statistical difference at P<0.05 and significant statistical difference at P<0.01. Funnel plots, Begg’s tests, and Egger’s tests were employed to evaluate publication bias and small sample research effects. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.1 (RevMan).

3 Results

3.1 Study selection

The initial screening obtained a total of 972 references from the PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases. After careful inspection, we removed 173 duplicate publications. Of the remaining 799 references, we have further excluded 457 by screening of the title and/or abstract since they were not relevant to our study. We carefully reviewed the remaining 25 full-text articles. Among them, we excluded 21 articles because they were non-RCTs, commentaries, editorials, or had no extractable clinical results. Finally, our meta-analysis included four RCTs [4,5,6,7] (Fig. 1).

Search strategy conducted for all included trials. Abbreviations: MeSH, medical subject headings.
Figure 1

Search strategy conducted for all included trials. Abbreviations: MeSH, medical subject headings.

3.2 Study characteristics and quality assessment

There were four RCTs included in this meta-analysis. A total of 5585 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were included in our meta-analysis, comprising 2334 ENOX patients and 3251 UFH patients. The average age of the population was similar between these studies. The baseline characteristics of the selected RCTs are listed in Table 1. The population characteristics of the selected RCTs are listed in Table 2. From the perspective of quality assessment, the four RCTs were considered to have low risks of bias. The funnel plot showed symmetry, which indicated low possible publication bias, and the Egger’s test showed that publication bias was not statistically significant for the research studies [4,5,6,7].

Table 1

Characteristics of randomized studies.

Table 2

Patient characteristics in each randomized trial.

3.3 Outcome of death

ENOX treatment showed the relative risk decrease of 27.0% in the rate of death compared to UFH. Of the data on death extracted from the four RCTs, there was almost no heterogeneity between the outcomes (P = 0.51, I2 =0%). The ENOX group showed lower incidences of death than the UFH group in PCI for STEMI (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56–0.97; P< 0.05).

3.4 Outcome of myocardial infarction

ENOX treatment during the follow-up period showed a relative risk decrease of 21.3% in the rate of MI compared to that of UFH. ENOX results for STEMI patients undergoing PCI were associated with significantly lower incidences of MI than UFH results (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.6.–0.90; P< 0.01; I2 = 0%).

Fixed-effect meta-analysis for death. The figure presents the number of events, the number of patients in the treatment and control groups, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each trial, the overall OR estimate with 95% CI and the P value for the association test, the P value for the heterogeneity test, and between-trial inconsistency (I2) measures.
Figure 2

Fixed-effect meta-analysis for death. The figure presents the number of events, the number of patients in the treatment and control groups, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each trial, the overall OR estimate with 95% CI and the P value for the association test, the P value for the heterogeneity test, and between-trial inconsistency (I2) measures.

Fixed-effect meta-analysis for myocardial infarction.
Figure 3

Fixed-effect meta-analysis for myocardial infarction.

Fixed-effect meta-analysis for major bleeding.
Figure 4

Fixed-effect meta-analysis for major bleeding.

3.5 Outcome of major bleeding

ENOX during the follow-up period showed a relative risk decrease of 19.2% in the rate of major bleeding compared to UFH. However, there was no statistical significance in major bleeding between ENOX and UFH groups (OR:0.81, 95%CI:0.53-1.24; P=0.33; I2= 0%).

4 Discussion

Our meta-analysis found that the use of ENOX in STEMI patients who underwent PCI was related to a decrease in the rates of death and MI compared with UFH, and it did not increase the incidence of major bleeding complications compared with UFH. ENOX is a low-molecular-weight heparin; therefore, it is expected to have better efficacy than UFH based on its pharmacological properties [11]. First, ENOX exhibits more activity than UFH against activated factor X, which can reduce thrombin production. Second, ENOX does not bind to plasma proteins, so it has a more predictable anticoagulant response than UFH. In addition, the pleiotropic effects of ENOX can also indirectly enhance antithrombotic properties and anticoagulant effects [12,13,14]. Based on the above theoretical basis, ENOX may be more suitable than UFH in STEMI patients undergoing PCI.

The current meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of ENOX and UFH in STEMI patients undergoing PCI [15]. In both ENOX-treated and UFH-treated groups, we found that the risk of MI was significantly higher than the risk of death, and the mortality of the ENOX-treated group was statistically significantly lower than the UFH-treated group (0.05>P>0.01). Furthermore, the rates of MI for the ENOX-treated group were statistically significantly lower than those of the UFH-treated group (P<0.01). This meta-analysis showed that ENOX treatment in STEMI patients undergoing PCI further benefited, given their reduced rate of reinfarction. Major bleeding complications were low in both groups, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatments. Our meta-analysis showed that the higher the risk of STEMI in patients undergoing PCI, the greater the benefits of ENOX treatment compared with UFH treatment.

ENOX had been extensively studied and validated for its beneficial effects in STEMI patients [16]. The primary endpoint of death was 3.8% of patients in the ENOX-treated group compared with 5.2% of patients in the UFH-treated group, while the primary endpoint of MI was 7.3% of patients in the ENOX-treated group compared with 9.3% of patients in the UFH-treated group. There were no significant increases in the incidence of major bleeding in the ENOX group compared with the UFH group: the prevalence of major bleeding in the ENOX and UFH groups was 2.5% and 3.1% of patients, respectively. STEMI patients undergoing PCI, ENOX showed a statistically significant difference in reduction of death compared with UFH, and a statistically significant difference in reduction of MI compared with UFH.

This meta-analysis included only three RCTs for the incidence of major bleeding complications. Although the mean ratio of major bleeding for ENOX was decreased compared with UFH, there were smaller sample sizes and lower incidences. Therefore, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. However, for a single study, the major bleeding risk was still reduced in the ENOX group [16]. Some previous meta-analyses did show that enoxaparin appears to be superior to unfractionated heparin for reducing mortality and bleeding results in patients with ACS or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. But there was still a lack of meta analyses of randomized controlled trials of patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI [17,18,19]. Our meta-analysis showed that STEMI patients undergoing PCI benefited significantly from the incidence of death and MI between ENOX and UFH and did not benefit in the rate of major bleeding.

4.1 Limitations

There are some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results of this meta-analysis. Firstly, only four RCTs were included in this analysis, which minimizes the generalizability of the results. We only obtained statistical data from the study, which could have led to inherent bias, design bias, treatment bias, and publication bias. Second, instead of using statistical data at the individual patient level, we applied the rate of events published in the conclusion of each study. Therefore, selection bias cannot be eliminated in the studies, and some clinical discoveries were under the control of between-research heterogeneity. Finally, we did not compare specific methods for intravenous or subcutaneous administration of ENOX. Nonetheless, our data satisfies the crucial demand for a comprehensive comparison between the two guided methods, which might improve informed decision-making for patients and physicians to select the ideal treatment for STEMI patients undergoing PCI.

5 Conclusion

We found that the rate of death and MI in ENOX treatment was significantly lower than that associated with UFH treatment in STEMI patients undergoing PCI. Moreover, in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI, the reduction of MI during ENOX treatment was more significant than the reduction in death. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to include RCTs evaluating the efficacy and safety of ENOX versus UFH in STEMI patients receiving PCI [15]. The findings from this study will help guide the planning of clinical treatment options, thereby improving patient quality of life and reducing medical costs. The limited data from these randomized studies showed no significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding.

Acknowledgment

We thank LetPub (www.letpub.com) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

References

  • [1]

    Kushner FG, Hand M, Smith SC Jr, King SB III, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Bailey SR, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Casey DE Jr, Green LA, Hochman JS, Jacobs AK, Krumholz HM, Morrison DA, Ornato JP, Pearle DL, Peterson ED, Sloan MA, Whitlow PL, et al. 2009 focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update) a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:2205 41. Erratum in: J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:612 Google Scholar

  • [2]

    Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, DiMario C, Falk V, Folliguet T, Garg S, Huber K, James S, Knuuti J, Lopez-Sendon J, Marco J, Menicanti L, Ostojic M, Piepoli MF, Pirlet C, Pomar JL, Reifart N, Ribichini FL, Schalij MJ, et al. European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force onMyocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 2501-2555 Google Scholar

  • [3]

    Navarese EP, De Luca G, Castriota F, Kozinski M, Gurbel PA, Gibson CM, Andreotti F, Buffon A, Siller-Matula JM, Sukiennik A, De Servi S, Kubica J. 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 CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [4]

    Gibson CM, Murphy SA, Montalescot G, Morrow DA, Ardissino D, Cohen M, Gulba DC, Kracoff OH, Lewis BS, Roguin N, Antman EM, Braunwald E. Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients receiving enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin after fibrinolytic therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 2238-2246 PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [5]

    Montalescot G, Ellis SG, de Belder MA, Janssens L, Katz O, Pluta W, Ecollan P, Tendera M, van Boven AJ, Widimsky P, Andersen HR, Betriu A, Armstrong P, Brodie BR, Herrmann HC, Neumann FJ, Effron MB, Lu J, Barnathan ES, Topol EJ. 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: 203-212 Web of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [6]

    Montalescot G, Zeymer U, Silvain J, Boulanger B, Cohen M, Goldstein P, Ecollan P, Combes X, Huber K, Pollack C Jr, Bénezet JF, Stibbe O, Filippi E, Teiger E, Cayla G, Elhadad S, Adnet F, Chouihed T, Gallula S, Greffet A, et al. Intravenous enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the international randomised open-label ATOLL trial. Lancet 2011; 378: 693-703 CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [7]

    Welsh R, Cantor W, Zheng Y, Brass N, Tymchak W, Westerhout C, de Werf F V, Armstrong P. Adequacy of anticoagulation with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin: the Canada primary PCI anticoagulant stream sub-study. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 2015; 31: S88-89 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8]

    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1-34 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ 2011; 343: 5928 CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [10]

    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses, BMJ 2003, 327: 557-560 PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [11]

    De Luca G, Marino P. Adjunctive benefits from low-molecular-weight heparins as compared to unfractionated heparin among patients with ST-segment elevationmyocardial infarction treated with thrombolysis. A meta-analysis of the randomized trials. Am Heart J 2007; 154:1-6 Google Scholar

  • [12]

    Montalescot G, Bal-dit-Sollier C, Chibedi D, Collet JP, Soulat T, Dalby M, Choussat R, Cohen A, Slama M, Steg PG, Dubois-Rande JL, Metzger JP, Tarragano F, Guermonprez JL, Drouet L. Comparison of effects on markers of blood cell activation of enoxaparin, dalteparin, and unfractionated heparin in patients with unstable angina pectoris or non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (the ARMADA study). Am J Cardiol 2003; 91: 925-930 PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [13]

    Ray KK, Morrow DA, Gibson CM, Murphy S, Antman EM, Braunwald E. Predictors of the rise in vWF after ST elevation myocardial infarction: implications for treatment strategies and clinical outcome: an ENTIRE-TIMI 23 substudy. Eur Heart J 2005; 26: 440-446 PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [14]

    Montalescot G, Collet JP, Lison L, Choussat R, Ankri A, Vicaut E, Perlemuter K, Philippe F, Drobinski G, ThomasD. Effects of various anticoagulant treatments on von Willebrand factor release in unstable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 110-114 PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [15]

    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012 PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [16]

    Montalescot G, Ongen Z, Guindy R, Sousa A, Lu SZ, Pahlajani D, Pellois A, Vicaut E. Predictors of outcome in patients undergoing PCI. Results of the RIVIERA study. Int J Cardiol 2008; 129: 379-387 PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [17]

    Silvain J, Beygui F, Barthélémy O, Pollack C Jr, Cohen M, Zeymer U, Huber K, Goldstein P, Cayla G, Collet JP, Vicaut E, Montalescot G. Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012; 344: e553 Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • [18]

    Murphy SA, Gibson CM, Morrow DA, Van de Werf F, Menown IB, Goodman SG, Mahaffey KW, Cohen M, McCabe CH, Antman EM, Braunwald E. Efficacy and safety of the low-molecular weight heparin enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin across the acute coronary syndrome spectrum: a meta-analysi. Eur Heart J. 2007 28(17): 2077-2086 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [19]

    Navarese EP, De Luca G, Castriota F, Kozinski M, Gurbel PA, Gibson CM, Andreotti F, Buffon A, Siller-Matula JM, Sukiennik A, De Servi S, Kubica J. 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 PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-05-26

Accepted: 2018-07-12

Published Online: 2018-09-08


Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author contributions:Data curation: Hailong Wang, Jianjun Yang, Xiaohua Pang.Formal analysis: Hailong Wang, Jianjun Yang, Xiaohua Pang.Methodology: Hailong Wang, Jianjun Yang, Xiaohua Pang.Project administration: Jianjun Yang.Validation: Jianjun Yang.Writing of original draft: Hailong Wang.Writing, review and editing: Hailong Wang.

Conflict of interest statement: Authors state no conflict of interest


Citation Information: Open Medicine, Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 359–365, ISSN (Online) 2391-5463, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2018-0054.

Export Citation

© 2018 Wang Hai-long et al., published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in