Abstract
This meta‐analysis assessed the rates of the efficacy and safety endpoints with intravenous low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Subcutaneous LMWH has compared favorably with UFH, but limited experience exists with intravenous LMWH for immediate anticoagulation in PCI. The meta‐analysis included data from eight randomized trials in which patients received LMWH (n = 1,037) or UFH (n = 978) during PCI. Seven additional nonrandomized studies/registries were analyzed to assess the efficacy and safety of LMWH during PCI. Efficacy endpoints were ischemic events (usually a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization) and the safety endpoint was bleeding (major, minor, or all bleeding). In the randomized studies, LMWH was comparable with UFH in terms of efficacy (6.2% vs. 7.5%) and major bleeding (0.9% vs. 1.8%). The analysis of pooled data, randomized or not, suggests potential improved efficacy (5.8% vs. 7.6%) and reduced major bleeding (0.6% vs. 1.8%) with LMWH (n = 3,787) compared with UFH (n = 978). During PCI, intravenous LMWH without coagulation monitoring has the potential to be at least as safe and efficacious as intravenous UFH. Further studies of LMWHs in PCI are therefore required. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.