摘要
Background： Despite its limitations, unfractionated heparin （UFH） has been the standard anticoagulant used during percutaneous coronary intervention （PCl）. This study compared the safety of low-dose UFH with sequential enoxaparin with that of UFH in patients with diabetes mellitus （DM） and complex coronary artery disease receiving elective PCl. Methods： In this retrospective study, 514 consecutive patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases and type 2 DM were admitted to the hospital and received selective PCI, from January 2013 to December 2015. All patients with PCl received low-dose UFH with enoxaparin （intraductal 50 U/kg UFH and 0.75 mg/kg enoxaparin, n = 254; UFH-Enox group） or UFH only （intraductal 100 U/kg UFH, n = 260; UFH group）. The study endpoints were major adverse cardiac events （MACEs）, namely death, myocardial infarction （MI）, stroke, target-vessel immediate revascularization （TVR）, and thrombolysis in MI （TIMI） major bleeding, within 30 days and 1 year after PCI. Any catheter thrombosis during the procedure was recorded. Results： Only one patient had an intraductal thrombus in the UFH group. At the 30-day follow-up, no MACE occurred in any group; seven and five cases of recurrent angina and/or rehospitalization were reported in the UFH-Enox and UFH groups, respectively; there was no significant difference between the two groups （χ^2= 0.11, P = 0.77）. There was no TIMI major bleeding in the groups. With respect to the 1-year endpoint, two cases of recurrent MI and two of TVRs were reported in the UFH-Enox group, whereas in the UFH group, one case of recurrent MI and three of TVRs were reported; no significant difference existed between the two groups （χ^2 0, P= 0.99）. There were 30 and 25 recurrent angina and/or rehospitalizations in the UFH-Enox and UFH groups, respectively; there was no significant difl＇erence between the two groups （χ^2 = 0.37, P= 0.57）. Conclusion： In elective PCI, low-dose UFH with sequential enoxaparin has similar effects and safety to the UFH-only method.
Background： Despite its limitations, unfractionated heparin （UFH） has been the standard anticoagulant used during percutaneous coronary intervention （PCl）. This study compared the safety of low-dose UFH with sequential enoxaparin with that of UFH in patients with diabetes mellitus （DM） and complex coronary artery disease receiving elective PCl. Methods： In this retrospective study, 514 consecutive patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases and type 2 DM were admitted to the hospital and received selective PCI, from January 2013 to December 2015. All patients with PCl received low-dose UFH with enoxaparin （intraductal 50 U/kg UFH and 0.75 mg/kg enoxaparin, n = 254; UFH-Enox group） or UFH only （intraductal 100 U/kg UFH, n = 260; UFH group）. The study endpoints were major adverse cardiac events （MACEs）, namely death, myocardial infarction （MI）, stroke, target-vessel immediate revascularization （TVR）, and thrombolysis in MI （TIMI） major bleeding, within 30 days and 1 year after PCI. Any catheter thrombosis during the procedure was recorded. Results： Only one patient had an intraductal thrombus in the UFH group. At the 30-day follow-up, no MACE occurred in any group; seven and five cases of recurrent angina and/or rehospitalization were reported in the UFH-Enox and UFH groups, respectively; there was no significant difference between the two groups （χ^2= 0.11, P = 0.77）. There was no TIMI major bleeding in the groups. With respect to the 1-year endpoint, two cases of recurrent MI and two of TVRs were reported in the UFH-Enox group, whereas in the UFH group, one case of recurrent MI and three of TVRs were reported; no significant difference existed between the two groups （χ^2 0, P= 0.99）. There were 30 and 25 recurrent angina and/or rehospitalizations in the UFH-Enox and UFH groups, respectively; there was no significant difl＇erence between the two groups （χ^2 = 0.37, P= 0.57）. Conclusion： In elective PCI, low-dose UFH with sequential enoxaparin has similar effects and safety to the UFH-only method.
