Increased risk of myocardial infarction with dabigatran etexilate: fact or fiction? A critical meta-analysis of over 580,000 patients from integrating randomized controlled trials and real-world studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 267 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
An-Hua Wei ◽  
Zhi-Chun Gu ◽  
Chi Zhang ◽  
Yu-Feng Ding ◽  
Dong Liu ◽  
...  
Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 3633-3633
Author(s):  
Jonathan Douxfils ◽  
Fanny Buckinx ◽  
François Mullier ◽  
Valentine Minet ◽  
Véronique Rabenda ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Dabigatran etexilate (DE) is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor approved for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in adult patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). In the RE-LY trial, myocardial infarction (MI) rates were increased with DE 110mg bid and 150mg bid when compared to warfarin. The risk of MI associated with the use of DE was assessed in a previous meta-analysis of 7 non-inferiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing a significant 33% increase in MI. We performed an updated meta-analysis of RCTs comparing DE with active comparators or placebo to assess the effect of this agent on MI risk as a primary objective. The outcome of major bleeding (MB) and all-cause mortality was also assessed to provide global safety and efficacy measure. Stratifications by comparators (enoxaparin, warfarin or placebo) and by studies using the 150mg bid and the 110mg bid dose regimen were performed. Materials and Methods We conducted searches of the published literature and a clinical-trials registry maintained by the drug manufacturer till 22th of March, 2013. Criteria for inclusion in our meta-analysis included all RCTs and the availability of outcome data for MI, MB and all-cause mortality. Among the 423 unique references identified, 13 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All methodologies were performed according to the PRISMA Statement. Results Myocardial infarction occurs in 287 of 23,839 patients (1.20%) treated with DE and in 106 of 13,536 patients treated with controls (0.78%). Major bleeding occur in 948 of 27,063 patients (3.50%) treated with DE and in 551/15,341 patients (3.59%) treated with controls. Death occurs in 989 of 24,162 patients (4.09%) treated with DE and in 570 of 14,498 patients (3.93%) treated with controls. Overall OR for MI, MB and all-cause mortality were 1.32 (95% CI; 1.07-1.63; P=0.010), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.98; P=0.010) and 0.90 (95% CI; 0.81-1.00; P=0.046) (Figure 1). When compared to warfarin, OR for MI, MB and all-cause mortality were 1.38 (95% CI: 1.08-1.77; P=0.010), 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75-0.95; P=0.006) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81-1.01; P=0.069), respectively (Figure 1). In RCTs using the 150mg bid dose regimen, OR for MI, MB and all-cause mortality were 1.44 (95% CI: 1.09-1.90; P=0.010), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.81 to 1.05; P=0.228) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78-1.00; P=0.045), respectively (Figure 2). Results of the 110mg bid dose were mainly driven by the RE-LY trial. Discussion DE significantly reduced MB and all-cause mortality compared to controls. However, while the reduction of MB is statistically significant versus warfarin, the reduction in all-cause mortality is not (Figure 1B & 1C). The increased risk of MI with the 150mg bid dose is significant but the reduction in MB and mortality is non-statistically significant (Figure 2). Taken together, these remarks suggest that in frail patients presenting comorbidities, the choice of the 150mg bid dose should be carefully discussed and the 110mg bid dose might be considered. Based on our results, one cannot conclude that the 110mg bid dose is associated with a higher risk of MI. However, in terms of absolute risk, such an increased risk of MI should be tempered when compared to the outcomes of stroke or systemic embolism, MB and all-cause mortality. The results from the RE-LY trial showed that the benefits of DE over warfarin outweigh this increase risk of MI. The risk difference was greatly in favor of DE regarding the composite of stroke/systemic embolism, MI, MB and all-cause mortality. Conclusion This meta-analysis of RCTs provides robust evidence that DE is associated with an overall significant 32% increase in the risk of MI. The risk was principally identified when warfarin is used as comparator (38% increase). In RCTs using the 150mg bid DE dose, a significant 44% overall increased risk of MI was identified. No definitive conclusion about the absence of the risk of MI with the 110mg bid DE dose can be drawn at this time. However, this increase risk has to be tempered with the overall benefit of DE especially in the patients with NVAF. In conclusion, we suggest that health care professionals and regulators should consider additional risk minimization strategy to prevent the risk of MI in vulnerable population. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Angiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 000331972199503
Author(s):  
Ling Chen ◽  
Liye Shi ◽  
Wen Tian ◽  
Shijie Zhao

Background: The effects of intracoronary (IC) thrombolysis therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) remain unclear. Methods: The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. All relevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, with no time or language limitation. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% CI were calculated. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials involving a total of 1341 patients were included. Compared with the control group, IC thrombolysis in patients with STEMI could reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; RR 0.632, 95% CI, 0.474-0.843, P = .002) and improve left ventricular ejection fraction (RR 0.343, 95% CI, 0.178-0.509, P < .001) and myocardial microcirculation. However, there was no difference noted in the mortality (RR 0.759, 95% CI, 0.347-1.661, P = .490). The incidence rate of major bleeding and minor bleeding was comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Intracoronary thrombolysis was associated with improved MACE and myocardial microcirculation in patients with STEMI having PPCI, though it failed to improve mortality.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J.Y Levett ◽  
S.B Windle ◽  
K.B Filion ◽  
J Cabaussel ◽  
M.J Eisenberg

Abstract Background Approximately half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) present with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Purpose To compare the risks of major cardiovascular outcomes and procedural complications in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD randomized to complete revascularization versus culprit-only PCI. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing complete to culprit-only PCI, identified via a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Libraries. Count data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to obtain relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 8 RCTs (n=6,632) were included, with mean/median follow-up times ranging from 6 to 36 months. Compared to culprit-only PCI, complete PCI was associated with a substantial reduction in MACE (12.6% vs. 22.0%), repeat myocardial infarction (4.5% vs. 6.9%), and repeat revascularization (3.3% vs. 12.1%) (Table 1). Complete PCI may also improve all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but estimates were accompanied by wide 95% CIs. Findings for stroke, major bleeding, and contrast-induced AKI were inconclusive. Conclusion Complete revascularization appears to confer benefit over culprit-only PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, and should be considered a first-line strategy in these patients. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Mr. Levett is supported by a Dr. Clarke K. McLeod Memorial Scholarship, funded through the McGill University Faculty of Medicine Research Bursary Program. Dr. Filion is supported by a Junior 2 Research Scholar award from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé and a William Dawson Scholar award from McGill University.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document