MEDICAL SCIENCE. GISSI-2: A factorial randomised trial of alteplase versus streptokinase and heparin versus no heparin among 12 490 patients with acute myocardial infarction

A multicentre, randomised, open trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design was conducted to compare the benefits and risks of two thrombolytic agents, streptokinase (SK, 1\ub75 MU infused intravenously over 30-60 min) and alteplase (tPA, 100 mg infused intravenously over 3 h) in patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to coronary care units within 6 h from onset of symptoms. The patients were also randomised to receive heparin (12 500 U subcutaneously twice daily until discharge from hospital, starting 12 h after beginning the tPA or SK infusion) or usual therapy. All patients without specific contraindications were given atenolol (5-10 mg iv) and aspirin (300-325 mg a day). The end-point of the study was the combined estimate of death plus severe left ventricular damage. 12 490 patients were randomised to four treatment groups (SK alone, SK plus heparin, tPA alone, tPA plus heparin). No specific differences between the two thrombolytic agents were detected as regards the combined end-point (tPA 23\ub71%; SK 22\ub75%; relative risk 1\ub704, 95% Cl 0\ub795-1\ub713), nor after the addition of heparin to the aspirin treatment (hep 22\ub77%, no hep 22\ub79%; RR 0\ub799, 95% Cl 0\ub791-1\ub708). The outcome of patients allocated to the four treatment groups was similar with respect to baseline risk factors such as age, Killip class, hours from onset of symptoms, and site and type of infarct. The rates of major in-hospital cardiac complications (reinfarction, post-infarction angina) were also similar. The incidence of major bleeds was significantly higher in SK and heparin treated patients (respectively, tPA 0\ub75%, SK 1\ub70%, RR 0\ub757, 95% Cl 0\ub738-0\ub785; hep 1\ub70%, no hep 0\ub76%, RR 1\ub764, 95% Cl 1\ub709-2\ub745), whereas the overall incidence of stroke was similar in all groups. SK and tPA appear equally effective and safe for use in routine conditions of care, in all infarct patients who have no contraindications, with or without post-thrombolytic heparin treatment. The 8\ub78% hospital mortality of the study population (compared with approximately 13% in the control cohort of the GISSI-1 trial) indicates the beneficial impact of the proven acute treatments for AMI. \ua9 1990

Efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in combination with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin: The ASSENT-3 randomised trial in acute myocardial infarction

Background: Current fibrinolytic therapies fail to achieve optimum reperfusion in many patients. Low-molecular-weight heparins and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have shown the potential to improve pharmacological reperfusion therapy. We did a randomised, open-label trial to compare the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase plus enoxaparin or abciximab, with that of tenecteplase plus weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods: 6095 patients with acute myocardial infarction of less than 6 h were randomly assigned one of three regimens: full-dose tenecteplase and enoxaparin for a maximum of 7 days (enoxaparin group; n=2040), half-dose tenecteplase with weight-adjusted low-dose unfractionated heparin and a 12-h infusion of abciximab (abciximab group; n=2017), or full-dose tenecteplase with weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin for 48 h (unfractionated heparin group; n=2038). The primary endpoints were the composites of 30-day mortality, in-hospital reinfarction, or in-hospital refractory ischaemia (efficacy endpoint), and the above endpoint plus in-hospital intracranial haemorrhage or in-hospital major bleeding complications (efficacy plus safety endpoint). Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings: There were significantly fewer efficacy endpoints in the enoxaparin and abciximab groups than in the unfractionated heparin group: 233/2037 (11.4%) versus 315/2038 (15.4%; relative risk 0.74 [95% CI 0.63-0.87], p=0.0002) for enoxaparin, and 223/2017 (11.1%) versus 315/2038 (15.4%; 0.72 [0.61-0.84], p<0.0001) for abciximab. The same was true for the efficacy plus safety endpoint: 280/2037 (13.7%) versus 347/2036 (17.0%; 0.81 [0.70-0.93], p=0.0037) for enoxaparin, and 287/2016 (14.2%) versus 347/2036 (17.0%; 0.84 [0.72-0.96], p=0.01416) for abciximab. Interpretation: The tenecteplase plus enoxaparin or abciximab regimens studied here reduce the frequency of ischaemic complications of an acute myocardial infarction. In light of its ease of administration, tenecteplase plus enoxaparin seems to be an attractive alternative reperfusion regimen that warrants further study