Abstract
Background
Results from the Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization, and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (SYNERGY) trial showed that the low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin was non‐inferior compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with non‐ST‐elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE‐ACS) managed invasively.
Hypothesis
We explored the influence of SYNERGY trial site participation on subsequent patterns of heparin use for NSTE‐ACS patients treated in routine practice.
Methods
We examined temporal patterns of LMWH use compared with UFH use among 122 764 patients with NSTE‐ACS enrolled in the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) quality improvement initiative between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2006, to determine whether site participation in SYNERGY influenced the type of heparin used before and after publication of the SYNERGY results in July 2004.
Results
A total of 118 out of 388 (30%) U.S. hospitals participating in CRUSADE simultaneously participated in SYNERGY. SYNERGY sites in the CRUSADE registry were more likely to have a teaching affiliation and have more hospital beds than non‐SYNERGY centers in the registry. There was no difference in the proportion of patients treated with LMWH at SYNERGY and non‐SYNERGY sites prior to July 2004 compared with after July 2004. However, at SYNERGY sites, there was a slight decrease in the proportion of patients treated with both UFH and LMWH within 24 hours of presentation.
Conclusions
The results of the SYNERGY trial did not appear to influence temporal patterns of LMWH use at sites in the CRUSADE registry. Furthermore, site participation in the SYNERGY trial did not alter patterns of LMWH use for NSTE‐ACS after publication of the trial results in July 2004. Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.2 MB).
References
- 1. Brown N, Melville M, Gray D, et al. Relevance of clinical trial results in myocardial infarction to medical practice: comparison of four year outcome in participants of a thrombolytic trial, patients receiving routine thrombolysis, and those deemed ineligible for thrombolysis. Heart 1999; 81: 598–602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ketley D, Woods KL. Impact of clinical trials on clinical practice: example of thrombolysis for acute myocardial. Lancet 1993; 342: 891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Kizer JR, Cannon CP, McCabe CH, et al. Trends in the use of pharmacotherapies for acute myocardial infarction among physicians who design and/or implement randomized trials versus physicians in routine clinical practice: the MILIS‐TIMI experience. Am Heart J 1999; 137: 79–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, Furberg CD. From knowledge to practice in chronic cardiovascular disease: a long and winding road. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: 1738–1742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Antman EM, McCabe CH, Gurfinkel EP, et al. Enoxaparin prevents death and cardiac ischemic events in unstable angina/non‐Q‐wave myocardial infarction: results of the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 11B trial. Circulation 1999; 100: 1593–1601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Cohen M, Demers C, Gurfinkel EP, et al. A comparison of low‐molecular‐weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 447–452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Cohen M, Theroux P, Borzak S, et al. Randomized double‐blind safety study of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes treated with tirofiban and aspirin: the ACUTE II study. Am Heart J 2002; 144: 470–477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Goodman SG, Fitchett D, Armstrong PW, et al., for the Integrilin and Enoxaparin Randomized Assessment of Acute Coronary Syndrome Treatment Trial I. Randomized evaluation of the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in high‐risk patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes receiving the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor eptifibatide. Circulation 2003; 107: 238–244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Blazing MA, de Lemos JA, White HD, et al. Safety and efficacy of enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes who receive tirofiban and aspirin: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004; 292: 55–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Califf RM, Petersen JL, Hasselblad V, et al. A perspective on trials comparing enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in the treatment of non‐ST‐elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2005; 149(4 suppl 1): S91–S99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Petersen JL, Mahaffey KW, Hasselblad V, et al. Efficacy and bleeding complications among patients randomized to enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin for antithrombin therapy in non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic overview. JAMA 2004; 292: 89–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Klein W, Kraxner W, Hodl R, et al. Patterns of use of heparins in ACS. Correlates and hospital outcomes: the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Thromb Haemost 2003; 90: 519–527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Singh K, Roe M, Peterson E, et al. Low‐molecular‐weight heparin compared with unfractionated heparin for patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors: results from the CRUSADE initiative. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2006; 21(3): 211–220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Ferguson JJ, Califf RM, Antman EM, et al. Enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in high‐risk patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an intended early invasive strategy: primary results of the SYNERGY randomized trial. JAMA 2004; 292: 45–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Hoekstra JW, Pollack CV Jr, Roe MT, et al. Improving the care of patients with non‐ST‐elevation acute coronary syndromes in the emergency department: the CRUSADE initiative. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9: 1146–1155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Califf RM, Peterson ED, Gibbons RJ, et al. Integrating quality into the cycle of therapeutic development. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40: 1895–1901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Jackevicius CA, Anderson GM, Leiter L, et al. Use of the statins in patients after acute myocardial infarction: does evidence change practice? Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 183–188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. 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: 2077–2086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction—summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40: 1366–1374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]