Segurança e efetividade da enoxaparina versus heparina não-fracionada no tratamento de pacientes submetidos a implante eletivo de stents não-farmacológicos: resultados imediatos e tardios

Centemero, Marinella; Maia, Felipe; Sousa, Amanda G. M. R.; Feres, Fausto; Staico, Rodolfo; Mattos, Luiz Alberto; Tanajura, Luiz Fernando; Chaves, Áurea J.; Ferreira, Carlos Eduardo; Costa, José de Ribamar; Feldman, André; Mota, Anselmo Ribeiro da; Pinto, Ibraim; Sousa, J. Eduardo

doi:10.1590/s2179-83972008000200011

Rev. Bras. Cardiol. Invasiva

2008

DOI: 10.1590/s2179-83972008000200011

|View full text |Cite

Segurança e efetividade da enoxaparina versus heparina não-fracionada no tratamento de pacientes submetidos a implante eletivo de stents não-farmacológicos: resultados imediatos e tardios

Marinella Centemero¹,

Felipe Maia²,

Amanda G. M. R. Sousa³

et al.

Abstract: 3 vezes ocorreu em 2 pacientes, ambos no G2-ENO (p = 0,25). Não ocorreram morte, AVE ou RU nos dois grupos. Os níveis do fator anti-Xa no G2-ENO revelaram boa anticoagulação (AC) nas duas fases: após 10 minutos, a média foi de 1,21 ± 0,23 UI/ml (0,73-1,68 Ul/ml) e no final da intervenção percutânea, foi de 1,04 ± 0,23 UI/ml (0,56-1,61 UI/ml). Na FT, 24% dos pacientes do G1-HNF e 31,5% dos pacientes do G2ENO apresentaram EC (p = 0,12). CONCLUSÕES: A utilização da ENO durante intervenção percutânea eletiva foi t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2008

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, while the study by Centemero et al 11 does not give definitive answers on the safety and efficacy of IV enoxaparin in elective PCI, it does provide valuable incremental information, especially about antiXa activity following IV bolus enoxaparin. Previous studies, including STEEPLE, have shown that IV enoxaparin can be safely given to low risk patients undergoing elective PCI.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In the current issue of Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva, Centemero et al 11 provide additional insight into the safety and efficacy of IV enoxaparin in elective PCI. The authors describe their single center, prospective, open label, observational experience with consecutive patients receiving IV enoxaparin (0.75 mg/kg; n = 57) for elective PCI, in comparison to their experience with IV UFH (100 IU/kg; n = 143) in similar patients.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In regards to the efficacy data, Centemero et al 11 describe the major cardiovascular events during hospitalization and at 3 year follow up. Major cardiovascular events were recorded during hospitalization without mention of how long patients remained in the hospital nor at what time point outcomes were measured.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sobre martelos, pregos e nossa caixa de ferramentas, que sempre aumenta...

Canales¹,

Ferguson²

2008

Rev. Bras. Cardiol. Invasiva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editorial This bit of folk wisdom is something that we physicians should take to heart. We have an assortment of therapeutic weaponry that we bring to bear; some of the tools we use are more favored than others, not necessarily because they are better, but frequently because they are something we have a lot of experience with, and are comfortable with. We like to use the tools (drugs, devices) that we are very familiar with, and once we have something that works well (or so we think) we tend to use it a LOT. In many ways the way we use antithrombotic therapy for coronary intervention is a perfect example of sticking with what we may be comfortable with, while we try to find ways to explore other therapeutic options and yet not straying too far from our "comfort zone".Antithrombotic therapy is currently recommended by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology for use during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to prevent thrombus formation at the site of arterial injury and on coronary guide wires and catheters 1,2 . Historically, unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been the mainstay of anticoagulation therapy during PCI, however due to numerous clinical and biochemical limitations, newer antithrombotic therapies (including low molecular weight heparins, direct thrombin inhibitors, and direct and indirect Xa inhibitors) are part of an ever-expanding therapeutic armamentarium.Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH), such as enoxaparin, have emerged as an attractive alternative to UFH for systemic anticoagulation due to the numerous biological and pharmacokinetic limitations of UFH. The inactivation of thrombin by UFH depends on the binding of antithrombin and thrombin in a chain length dependent fashion. However, most of the unwanted side effects of UFH are chain length (and charge) dependent, including significant protein binding (leading to inconsistent bioavailability with unreliable and variable degrees of anticoagulation), significant platelet activation, the risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and the inability to block clot bound thrombin 3-5 .Although LMWH (administered subcutaneously) is already established as an integral part in the modernday medical treatment of ACS, the use of LMWH as an alternative anticoagulant for procedural use during elective (or urgent) PCI is less well established. A number of studies have examined the use of intravenous enoxaparin as an alternative to UFH in elective PCI 6-9 . In these relatively small studies, LMWH, administered intravenously instead of subcutaneously, in the non-emergent procedural PCI setting was as efficacious as UFH, with similar bleeding risk. The STEEPLE trial 10 is the most recent large scale prospective study comparing UFH with IV enoxaparin in elective PCI.In the STEEPLE trial 10 , 3,528 patients were randomized to IV enoxaparin (0.5 mg/kg or 0.75 mg/kg) or IV UFH (50-70 U/kg or 70-100 U/kg) with or without a GP IIb IIIa antagonist. The primary endpoint, non-CABG-related major plus m...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sobre martelos, pregos e nossa caixa de ferramentas, que sempre aumenta...

Canales¹,

Ferguson²

2008

Rev. Bras. Cardiol. Invasiva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Segurança e efetividade da enoxaparina versus heparina não-fracionada no tratamento de pacientes submetidos a implante eletivo de stents não-farmacológicos: resultados imediatos e tardios

Cited by 1 publication

References 25 publications

Sobre martelos, pregos e nossa caixa de ferramentas, que sempre aumenta...

Sobre martelos, pregos e nossa caixa de ferramentas, que sempre aumenta...

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About