Clinical effects of anticoagulant therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: systematic overview of randomised trials
- 14 September 1996
- Vol. 313 (7058), 652-659
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7058.652
Abstract
Objectives: Most randomised trials of anticoagulant therapy for suspected acute myocardial infarction have been small and, in some, aspirin and fibrinolytic therapy were not used routinely. A systematic overview (meta-analysis) of their results is needed, in particular to assess the clinical effects of adding heparin to aspirin. Design: Computer aided searches, scrutiny of reference lists, and inquiry of investigators and companies were used to identify potentially eligible studies. On central review, 26 studies were found to involve unconfounded randomised comparisons of anticoagulant therapy versus control in suspected acute myocardial infarction. Additional information on study design and outcome was sought by correspondence with study investigators. Subjects: Patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Interventions: No routine aspirin was used among about 5000 patients in 21 trials (including half of one small trial) that assessed heparin alone or heparin plus oral anticoagulants, and aspirin was used routinely among 68 000 patients in six trials (including the other half of one small trial) that assessed the addition of intravenous or high dose subcutaneous heparin. Main outcome measurements: Death, reinfarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and major bleeds (average follow up of about 10 days). Results: In the absence of aspirin, anticoagulant therapy reduced mortality by 25% (SD 8%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 38%; 2P = 0.002), representing 35 (11) fewer deaths per 1000. There were also 10 (4) fewer strokes per 1000 (2P = 0.01), 19 (5) fewer pulmonary emboli per 1000 (2PConclusions: The clinical evidence from randomised trials does not justify the routine addition of either intravenous or subcutaneous heparin to aspirin in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (irrespective of whether any type of fibrinolytic therapy is used). Heparin seemed to be useful among patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction who, in the past, had received neither aspirin nor fibrinolytic therapy The available evidence from clinical trials does not justify the routine addition of intravenous or subcutaneous heparin to aspirin in the treatment of acute myo- cardial infarction (whether or not any type of fibrinolytic therapy is used)Keywords
This publication has 62 references indexed in Scilit:
- Overview of randomized trials of intravenous heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapyThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1996
- Effect of heparin on coronary arterial patency after thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarctionThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1990
- Comparison of High-Dose with Low-Dose Subcutaneous Heparin to Prevent Left Ventricular Mural Thrombosis in Patients with Acute Transmural Anterior Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1989
- Reduction in Fatal Pulmonary Embolism and Venous Thrombosis by Perioperative Administration of Subcutaneous HeparinNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988
- Prophylactic anticoagulation for left ventricular thrombi after acute myocardial infarction: A prospective randomized trialAmerican Heart Journal, 1987
- Effect of early anticoagulation on the frequency of left ventricular thrombi after anterior wall acute myocardial infarctionThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1986
- Low dose heparin in the prevention of deepvein thromboses in patients with acute myocardial infarctionAmerican Heart Journal, 1980
- Evidence Favoring the Use of Anticoagulants in the Hospital Phase of Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1977
- Anticoagulants in acute myocardial infarctionAmerican Heart Journal, 1966
- Preinfarction syndrome—Management and follow-upThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1964