Parenteral anticoagulation in non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: which option to pick?

Abstract

Abstract Background According to the 2015 European Society of Cardiology's non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) clinical practice guideline, fondaparinux is the parenteral anticoagulant with the most favorable efficacy/safety profile. Thus, it is recommended over enoxaparin, for instance, in that setting. However, its use and performance in a contemporary portuguese cohort has not been fully described. Purpose To assess fondaparinux utilization degree and to compare its in-hospital efficacy and safety profiles with those of enoxaparin, in a contemporary portuguese cohort of NSTE-ACS patients. Methods Patients consecutively admitted with NSTE-ACS, between October 2010 and January 2019, were retrospectively identified from a national registry of acute coronary syndromes and were further divided in two groups, as per parenteral anticoagulation strategy (fondaparinux vs. enoxaparin). Key exclusion criteria were specific contraindications to both agents, recent hemorrhagic stroke and indications for anticoagulation other than ACS. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of in-hospital reinfarction and mortality, whereas the primary safety endpoint was moderate-to-severe bleeding, as defined by the GUSTO criteria. Results A total of 5843 NSTE-ACS patients (mean age 65±13 years, 72.4% males) were included. Of these, 89.2% had a myocardial infarction, while the remaining 10.8% were diagnosed with unstable angina. The most frequent cardiovascular comorbidities were hypertension (71.3%), dyslipidemia (63.0%) and diabetes mellitus (31.7%). Fondaparinux was the anticoagulant of choice in 27.5% of patients, whereas the remainder were treated with enoxaparin. Compared with patients receiving enoxaparin, those in the fondaparinux group were younger, had less hypertension or diabetes mellitus and exhibited a less severe presentation; nonetheless, they had more often a previous history of coronary artery disease or hemorrhagic events. An invasive approach in terms of revascularization was adopted in 87.7% of the cohort (79.1% in the fondaparinux group vs. 90.9% in the enoxaparin group, p<0.001). The primary efficacy and safety endpoints occurred in 2.4% and 4.7% of patients, respectively. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the use of fondaparinux was independently associated with a lower rate of both the primary efficacy (OR 0.56 [0.32–0.95], p=0.034) and the primary safety endpoints (OR 0.37 [0.23–0.59], p<0.001). Conclusion In a contemporary portuguese cohort of NSTE-ACS patients, fondaparinux was underused but still independently associated with a lower risk of both a composite of in-hospital reinfarction or mortality event and major hemorrhage. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None