Features of Parenteral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients With Myocardial Infarction According to the Russian Register of Acute Myocardial Infarction – REGION-IM

Aim      To study specific features of the parenteral anticoagulant therapy for acute myocardial infarction (MI) in the Russian Federation and to evaluate the consistency of the prescribed parenteral anticoagulant therapy with the effective clinical guidelines.

Material and methods  REGION-MI, the Russian rEGIstry for acute myOcardial iNfarction, is a multicenter observational study. This registry includes all patients admitted to hospitals with a documented diagnosis of ST-elevation acute MI (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute MI (NSTEMI) based on the criteria of the Forth Universal Definition of MI of the European Society of Cardiology. Risk of bleeding was assessed with the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) scale, and risk of major bleeding in patients with NSTEMI was additionally assessed with the CRUSADE scale.

Results From November 01, 2020 through April 03, 2022, 5025 patients were included into the REGION-MI registry. At primary vascular departments, 70.5% of patients were administered unfractionated heparin (NFH); at regional vascular centers, 37.1 % of patients were administered NFH, 29.6 % enoxaparin, 20,2% NFH in combination with enoxaparin, 6.8 % fondaparinux, 4.2 % NFH in combination with fondaparinux, and 1.9 % nadroparin. At the prehospital stage, NFH was used as an anticoagulant support for the thrombolytic therapy (TLT) in 84% of patients, and low-molecular heparins (LMH) were used in 16 %. At the hospital stage, UFH was administered to 64.4 % of patients, and enoxaparin was administered to 23.9 % of patients. Among the patients who had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 40 % received NFH, 25 % enoxaparin, 22 % NFH in combination with enoxaparin, 7 % fondaparinux, and 4 % NFH in combination with fondaparinux. In conservative and invasive tactics of therapy for NSTEMI, NFH was also administered more frequently (43 and 43 %, respectively), followed by (according to frequency of administration) enoxaparin (36 and 34 %, respectively), NFH in combination with enoxaparin (10 and 16 %, respectively), fondaparinux (7 and 6 %, respectively), and NFH in combination with fondaparinux (3 and 1 %, respectively).

Conclusion      According to the Russian registry of acute MI, REGION-MI, with all strategies for the treatment of MI, parenteral anticoagulants are not prescribed in full consistency with clinical guidelines. The most frequently used parenteral anticoagulant is NFH. Despite the high efficacy and safety of fondaparinux, the frequency of its administration remains unjustifiably low not only in the Russian Federation but also in other countries. The same can be said about the administration of enoxaparin to patients who had received TLT. Attention should be paid to physicians’ awareness of recent clinical guidelines, to minimize the prehospital treatment with parenteral anticoagulants, to limit this treatment to the TLT support, and to provide continuity between all stages of medical care.

1. Mandelzweig L, Battler A, Boyko V, Bueno H, Danchin N, Filippatos G et al. The second Euro Heart Survey on acute coronary syndromes: characteristics, treatment, and outcome of patients with ACS in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin in 2004. European Heart Journal. 2006;27(19):2285–93. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehl196

2. Puymirat E, Battler A, Birkhead J, Bueno H, Clemmensen P, Cottin Y et al. Euro Heart Survey 2009 Snapshot: regional variations in presentation and management of patients with AMI in 47 countries. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2013;2(4):359–70. DOI: 10.1177/2048872613497341

3. Boytsov S.A., Shakhnovich R.M., Erlikh A.D., Tereschenko S.N., Kukava N.G., Rytova Yu.K. et al. Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction. REGION-MI – Russian Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction. Kardiologiia. 2021;61(6):41–51. DOI: 10.18087/cardio.2021.6.n1595

4. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2018;39(2):119–77. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393

5. Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. European Heart Journal. 2021;42(14):1289–367. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575

6. Averkov O.V., Duplyakov D.V., Gilyarov M.Yu., Novikova N.A., Shakhnovich R.M., Yakovlev A.N. et al. 2020 Clinical practice guidelines for Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2020;25(11):251–310. DOI: 10.15829/29/1560-4071-2020-4103

7. Barbarash O.L., Duplyakov D.V., Zateischikov D.A., Panchenko E.P., Shakhnovich R.M., Yavelov I.S. et al. 2020 Clinical practice guidelines for Acute coronary syndrome without ST segment elevation. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2021;26(4):149–202. DOI: 10.15829/1560-4071-2021-4449

8. Silvain J, Beygui F, Barthelemy O, Pollack C, Cohen M, Zeymer U et al. Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e553. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e553

9. Montalescot G, Zeymer U, Silvain J, Boulanger B, Cohen M, Goldstein P et al. Intravenous enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the international randomised open-label ATOLL trial. The Lancet. 2011;378(9792):693–703. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60876-3

10. Cassese S, Byrne RA, Laugwitz K-L, Schunkert H, Berger PB, Kastrati A. Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(2):196–203. DOI: 10.4244/EIJY14M08_01

11. Capodanno D, Gargiulo G, Capranzano P, Mehran R, Tamburino C, Stone GW. Bivalirudin versus heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI: An updated meta-analysis of 10,350 patients from five randomized clinical trials. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2016;5(3):253–62. DOI: 10.1177/2048872615572599

12. Erlinge D, Koul S, Eriksson P, Scherstén F, Omerovic E, Linder R et al. Bivalirudin versus heparin in non-ST and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction – a registry-based randomized clinical trial in the SWEDEHEART registry (the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial). American Heart Journal. 2016;175:36–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2016.02.007

13. Wester A, Attar R, Mohammad MA, Isma N, James S, Omerovic E et al. Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Monotherapy in Elderly Patients With Myocardial Infarction: A Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART Trial. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2020;13(4):e008671. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008671

14. Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Afzal R, Pogue J, Granger CB et al. Comparison of Fondaparinux and Enoxaparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes. New England Journal of Medicine. 2006;354(14):1464–76. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa055443

15. Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Afzal R, Pogue J, Granger CB et al. Effects of Fondaparinux on Mortality and Reinfarction in Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The OASIS-6 Randomized Trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2006;295(13):1519–30. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.13.joc60038

16. The FUTURA/OASIS-8 Trial Group, Steg PG, Jolly SS, Mehta SR, Afzal R, Xavier D et al. Low-Dose vs Standard-Dose Unfractionated Heparin for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated With Fondaparinux: The FUTURA/OASIS-8 Randomized Trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2010;304(12):1339–49. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1320

17. Caldeira D, Pereira H, Marques A, Alegria S, Calisto J, Silva PC da et al. Adjuvant antithrombotic therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Contemporaneous Portuguese cross-sectional data. Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia. 2019;38(11):809–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.repc.2019.02.015

18. Gabriel RS, White HD. ExTRACT-TIMI 25 trial: clarifying the role of enoxaparin in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction receiving fibrinolysis. Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy. 2007;5(5):851–7. DOI: 10.1586/14779072.5.5.851

19. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey DE, Chung MK, de Lemos JA et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013;61(4):e78–140. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.019

20. De la Torre Hernández JM, Sadaba Sagredo M, Telleria Arrieta M, Gimeno de Carlos F, Sanchez Lacuesta E, Bullones Ramírez JA et al. Antithrombotic treatment during coronary angioplasty after failed thrombolysis: strategies and prognostic implications. Results of the RESPIRE registry. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2017;17(1):212. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-017-0636-9

21. Soeiro A de M, Silva PGM de B e, Roque EA de C, Bossa AS, César MC, Simões SA et al. Fondaparinux versus Enoxaparin - Which is the Best Anticoagulant for Acute Coronary Syndrome? - Brazilian Registry Data. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia. 2016;107(3):239–44. DOI: 10.5935/abc.20160127

22. Szummer K, Oldgren J, Lindhagen L, Carrero JJ, Evans M, Spaak J et al. Association Between the Use of Fondaparinux vs Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Non–STSegment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JAMA. 2015;313(7):707–16. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.517

23. Almendro-Delia M, Izquierdo-Bajo Á, Madrona-Jiménez L, BlancoPonce E, Seoane-García T, García-del Río M et al. Fondaparinux versus enoxaparin in the contemporary management of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Insights from a multicenter registry. International Journal of Cardiology. 2021;332:29–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.02.081

24. Erlikh A.D. Fondaparinux in acute coronary syndrome without ST segment elevation – justification for using and real clinical practice. Atherothrombosis. 2018;1:26–32. DOI: 10.21518/2307-1109-2018-1-26-32

25. Pepe C, Machado M, Olimpio A, Ramos R. Cost-effectiveness of fondaparinux in patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia. 2012;99(1):613–22. DOI: 10.1590/S0066-782X2012005000060

26. Kossovsky M, Keller P, Mach F, Gaspoz J. Fondaparinux versus enoxaprin in the management of acute coronary syndromes in Switzerland: A cost comparison analysis. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2012;142:w13536. DOI: 10.4414/smw.2012.13536

27. Permsuwan U, Chaiyakunapruk N, Nathisuwan S, Sukonthasarn A. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fondaparinux vs Enoxaparin in NonST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in Thailand. Heart, Lung and Circulation. 2015;24(9):860–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2015.02.018

28. Alfonso Ross Terres J, Lozano-Ortega G, Kendall R, Sculpher MJ. Cost-effectiveness of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in Canada (OASIS-5). BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2015;15(1):180. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-015-0175-1

29. Washam JB, Herzog CA, Beitelshees AL, Cohen MG, Henry TD, Kapur NK et al. Pharmacotherapy in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;131(12):1123–49. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000183

30. Telford AnneM, Wilson C. Trial of heparin versus atenolol in prevention of myocardial infarction in intermediate coronary syndrome. The Lancet. 1981;317(8232):1225–8. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(81)92399-0

31. The RISC Group. Risk of myocardial infarction and death during treatment with low dose aspirin and intravenous heparin in men with unstable coronary artery disease. The Lancet. 1990;336(8719):827–30. DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92336-G