(Circulation. 1999;99:2892-2900.)
© 1999 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
From the Duke Clinical Research Institute (M.W.M., S.D.B., R.S., R.T., L.G.B., R.M.C., R.A.H.), Durham, NC; Methodist Hospital (N.S.K.), Houston, Tex; Cleveland Clinic Foundation (A.M.L., E.J.T.), Cleveland, Ohio; Cardialysis (J.D.), Rotterdam, Netherlands; Estudios Cardiologicos Latinoamerica (R.D.), Rosario, Argentina; Eberhard Karls University (K.R.K.), Tubingen, Germany; COR Therapeutics (D.G., M.K.), South San Francisco, Calif; and Thoraxcenter University Hospital (M.S.), Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Correspondence to Robert A. Harrington, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt St, Durham, NC 27705. E-mail Harri019{at}mc.duke.edu
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods and ResultsPatients presenting without persistent ST elevation during an ACS were randomized to receive a double-blind infusion of the platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor eptifibatide or placebo in addition to other standard therapies including heparin and aspirin. The primary end point was death/nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days, whereas bleeding and stroke were the main safety outcomes. Thrombocytopenia (nadir platelet count <100x109/L or <50% of baseline) occurred in 7.0% of enrolled patients. The time to onset was a median of 4 days in both treatment arms. Patients with thrombocytopenia were older, weighed less, were more likely nonwhite, and had more cardiac risk factors. These patients experienced significantly more bleeding events: they were more than twice as likely to experience moderate/severe bleeding after adjustment for confounders. Univariably, ischemic events (stroke, MI, and death) occurred significantly (P<0.001) more frequently in patients with thrombocytopenia; multivariable regression modeling preserved this association with death/nonfatal MI at 30 days. Neither the use of heparin or eptifibatide was found to independently increase thrombocytopenic risk.
ConclusionsAlthough causality between thrombocytopenia and adverse clinical events could not be established definitively, thrombocytopenia was highly correlated with both bleeding and ischemic events, and the presence of this condition identified a more-at-risk patient population.
Key Words: platelets eptifibatide glycoproteins angina myocardial infarction coronary artery disease
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Data suggest that thrombocytopenia developing during an ACS carries negative prognostic significance. The Thrombolysis and Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (TAMI) and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) groups have demonstrated that thrombocytopenia in patients experiencing acute ST-elevation MI is associated with significant increases in in-hospital mortality, bleeding, and total hospital stay and major and minor hemorrhage, respectively.3 4 Large ACS clinical trials have found that thrombocytopenia in patients undergoing high-risk angioplasty for an ACS correlates significantly with worse clinical outcomes, such as death and MI.5 6 7
The large subgroup of ACS patients with nonST-elevation MI and unstable angina, however, remains relatively unstudied with respect to thrombocytopenia. The Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT) trial evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of the platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor eptifibatide in this important patient population.
We examined thrombocytopenia in PURSUIT and sought to determine its incidence in this patient population, its prognostic significance, and finally, whether antiplatelet therapy through GP IIb/IIIa inhibition predisposes this population to develop thrombocytopenia.8
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Treatments
Patients were randomized in a double-blind fashion to receive
either intravenous eptifibatide (180 µg/kg bolus plus 2
µg · kg-1 ·
min-1 infusion [high dose] or 180 µg/kg
bolus plus 1.3 µg · kg-1 ·
min-1 infusion [low dose]) or
intravenous placebo control for 72 to 96 hours. Early in
the trial, however, safety parameters for the high dose of
eptifibatide were within acceptable limits, and as specified by the
protocol, the low-dose arm was discontinued, with all subsequent
patients receiving the high-dose regimen or placebo.
Concomitant use of aspirin, heparin, and other medications was left to the discretion of the individual investigators. For those patients weighing <70 kg and receiving intravenous unfractionated heparin, the protocol suggested a weight-adjusted heparin-dosing nomogram.10 It was recommended that patients who weighed >70 kg receive a standard nonadjusted heparin dose (5000 U IV bolus1000 U/h infusion). Transfusion guidelines were provided to all investigators to standardize transfusion usage.11 All decisions regarding cardiac catheterization or revascularization (PTCA or CABG) were left to the individual investigators.
Thrombocytopenia: Determination and Definition
Platelet count determinations were recommended at baseline,
on a daily basis during study-drug infusion, and at the investigator's
discretion during the remainder of hospitalization. The case report
form for all patients documented the baseline platelet count,
5
platelet measurements during study-drug infusion, and 1 nadir
platelet count after study-drug infusion. Thrombocytopenia was
defined as a nadir platelet count of
<100x109/L or a relative reduction of the nadir
platelet count to <50% of baseline.3 Severe and
profound thrombocytopenia were defined as platelet nadirs
<50x109/L and
<20x109/L, respectively.5
Additional Platelet Information
Periodic review of the blinded PURSUIT database indicated which
study patients were experiencing thrombocytopenia. A standard
thrombocytopenia form was then used to collect additional information
such as hematology consultations, heparin-induced antibody
determinations, and a complete listing of all platelet counts with
regard to those patients who were experiencing severe or profound
thrombocytopenia.
PURSUIT Thrombocytopenia Population
For purposes of this analysis, only data from the
high-dose eptifibatide and placebo arms of PURSUIT were
analyzed. Those patients found to have severe and profound
thrombocytopenia were then reviewed individually, when possible, to
verify the occurrence and degree of reported thrombocytopenia.
Additionally, several different thrombocytopenic populations were initially analyzed as the PURSUIT thrombocytopenia population. Each of these 3 groups experienced a platelet nadir that fulfilled the PURSUIT definition of thrombocytopenia, but they were different in that the timing with respect to coronary bypass grafting, a procedure that was expected to be a significant confounder, was considered. The 3 groups analyzed were: (1) patients who developed thrombocytopenia and never underwent CABG; (2) those who experienced thrombocytopenia before CABG or who never underwent CABG; and (3) those who developed thrombocytopenia regardless of the presence or timing of CABG. In each of these analyses, although the actual numbers varied, the overall trends in outcome variables were similar. We therefore concluded that thrombocytopenia affected outcomes in a uniform direction regardless of the presence or timing of bypass grafting, and we elected to the use the broadly defined third definition for our final PURSUIT thrombocytopenic population.
Clinical Outcomes
Clinical events such as death and myocardial ischemia/MI
were documented on the case report form. Those interventions and
clinical events that occurred after the baseline hospitalization but
within 30 days of enrollment were prospectively documented on a
standard 30-day form.
The primary efficacy outcome of the present study was the combined end point of death and nonfatal MI by 30 days after randomization. This end point was adjudicated by an independent, blinded Clinical Events Committee (CEC) using prespecified diagnostic criteria.9
Safety Outcomes
Safety outcomes for PURSUIT were CEC-adjudicated stroke; a
calculated bleeding index, defined as [number of units of packed red
blood cells transfused+(observed drop in hematocrit/3)]; and the
incidence of bleeding based on the GUSTO definition of bleeding
severity.12 According to these criteria, severe bleeding
was defined as intracranial hemorrhage or a bleeding event that
caused hemodynamic compromise and required
intervention, whereas moderate bleeding events were defined as those
requiring blood transfusion but not leading to
hemodynamic compromise or need for an intervention.
Statistics
Continuous variables are presented as medians with
25th and 75th percentiles. Categorical data are displayed as an
incidence (%). Differences in baseline characteristics and
clinical/safety outcomes between patients with and without
thrombocytopenia were compared univariably with the median test for all
reported medians and Pearson
2 test for all
reported incidences.
Because the outcomes in this patient population were multifactorial, we performed multivariable regression to isolate certain variables and assess their independent association with these outcomes. These variables are presented as ORs with 95% CIs. Four regression models were performed, 3 of which examined the contribution of thrombocytopenia to moderate/severe bleeding, the primary end point, and death alone, respectively. To assess the independent contribution of thrombocytopenia to these various outcomes, the model was adjusted for variables found to be important prognostic factors in previous ACS trials,13 all statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics, the presence of a moderate/severe bleeding event (except in the moderate/severe bleeding model), procedural interventions, and factors presumed to be important predictors of these outcomes. The fourth multivariable regression model, which attempted to predict risk factors for thrombocytopenia, was created with disproportionately represented baseline characteristics, procedural interventions, and known or presumed thrombocytopenia predictors used as covariates.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
The Figure
depicts the time to
onset of thrombocytopenia for the overall thrombocytopenia definition
and the combined severe/profound thrombocytopenia groups, respectively.
In the overall thrombocytopenia population, the timing of
thrombocytopenia was nearly identical in the 2 treatment arms (4 [2,
7] days for placebo versus 4 [2, 8] days for eptifibatide). In the
combined severe/profound thrombocytopenia group, the curves diverged
early, with eptifibatide-treated patients developing thrombocytopenia
at a median of 52 (32, 81) hours after randomization and
placebo-treated patients developing thrombocytopenia at a median of 126
(99, 293) hours.
|
Baseline Characteristics
Patients with thrombocytopenia were older, weighed less, and were
more likely to not be white (Table 2
).
Additionally, they had a greater number of cardiac risk factors, were
more frequently diabetic, and had a greater incidence of previous MI,
prior angioplasty, and history of peripheral vascular
disease.
|
Platelet Measures
Although there was a significant (P<0.001)
difference in baseline platelet count between the thrombocytopenia
(212x109/L [163x109/L,
260x109/L]) and nonthrombocytopenia groups
(226x109/L [192x109/L,
268x109/L]), the total decrease in platelet
count from baseline, as expected, was more marked in the
thrombocytopenia group (127x109/L
[83x109/L, 164x109/L]
versus 29x109/L
[13x109/L, 51x109/L]
for nonthrombocytopenia). The median absolute nadir platelet counts
were 90x109/L (75x109/L,
103x109/L) and 193x109/L
(161x109/L, 231x109/L)
for the thrombocytopenia and nonthrombocytopenia groups,
respectively.
Transfusions/Bleeding Events
The development of thrombocytopenia was associated with a
substantially higher incidence of any bleeding event, a moderate/severe
bleeding event, and the need for red blood cell or platelet
transfusion at any point during baseline hospitalization (Table 3
). The bleeding index was also
significantly higher (5.3 for thrombocytopenia versus 1.4 for
nonthrombocytopenia; P<0.001).
|
Clinical Outcomes
Data at 30 days after randomization documented worse outcomes for
patients with thrombocytopenia than for those without thrombocytopenia
(Table 3
). The incidence of ischemic events (stroke, MI,
death, and recurrent ischemia leading to cardiac procedure) at
any point after enrollment was higher in patients with
thrombocytopenia. The median length of stay in both intensive care
units and during baseline hospitalization was also significantly
(P<0.001) longer for patients experiencing
thrombocytopenia.
Use of Antiplatelet Therapies
The use of abciximab (0.3% versus 0.2%;
P=0.435), ticlopidine (7.1% versus 9.6%;
P=0.041), aspirin (91.3% versus 93.6%;
P=0.025), and thrombolytic therapy (2.1%
versus 2.3%; P=0.656)all drugs with known or potential
antiplatelet effectswas similarly distributed between the
thrombocytopenia and nonthrombocytopenia groups, respectively. Heparin,
also a drug with a known thrombocytopenic effect,14
was used with more prevalence (94.3% versus 89.6%;
P<0.001) and was infused for a longer period (87.0 versus
76.5 hours; P=0.021) in the thrombocytopenic group.
Eptifibatide Versus Placebo in Thrombocytopenic Patients
A comparison of clinical events in the thrombocytopenic
population of PURSUIT, grouped by study drug, revealed a
consistent but not statistically significant (except CABG,
P=0.027) trend toward better clinical outcomes in patients
with thrombocytopenia who were treated with eptifibatide (Table 4
). This relationship occurred in spite
of an excess incidence of any bleeding (P=0.017) and severe
bleeding (P=0.046) in this group. A formal statistical test
for interaction in our primary end-point regression model confirmed no
significant interaction between treatment group and thrombocytopenia,
implying that the benefit seen in the overall PURSUIT trial occurred in
the same direction and with similar magnitude for the thrombocytopenia
subpopulation.
|
Regression Models
The multivariable regression model for predictors of
moderate/severe bleeding (Table 5
)
demonstrated that even after adjustment for confounders,
thrombocytopenia was independently correlated with an increased
bleeding risk (OR 2.0 [1.6 to 2.6]). Similarly, the model for
predictors of the PURSUIT primary end point (Table 5
) revealed
that thrombocytopenia was independently associated with an increased
rate (OR 1.3 [1.0 to 1.6]) of death/nonfatal MI within 30 days of
randomization, even after adjustment for a large number of confounding
variables. Thrombocytopenia did not significantly increase the risk
of death alone, however, in our third regression model (not shown).
|
Finally, a number of variables were found to correlate
independently with increased risk of thrombocytopenia (Table 6
). Patients who underwent CABG were
highly significantly predisposed to the development of thrombocytopenia
(OR 12.2 [9.1 to 16.2]), as were patients with moderate to severe
bleeding events and those treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump.
However, the use of heparin, a therapy well known to cause
thrombocytopenia,14 did not significantly predispose
patients to increased thrombocytopenic risk in our model when evaluated
dichotomously (heparin use: yes/no; exposure time: <5 days/
5 days)
and continuously (infusion duration). Similarly, the use of other
antiplatelet therapies (ie, aspirin, ticlopidine, abciximab,
thrombolytics, and eptifibatide) was not associated
with a significantly increased risk of thrombocytopenia.
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Definition of Thrombocytopenia
Although the <50% of baseline component of our definition of
thrombocytopenia is not often included in analyses of
thrombocytopenia, we felt its inclusion was important because these
reductions indicate a degree of platelet compromise that is
potentially clinically significant. Importantly, in addition to
comparing baseline characteristics and safety/clinical outcomes for our
definition of thrombocytopenia, Tables 2
and 3
also provide a
breakdown of thrombocytopenia with a definition of a platelet nadir
<100x109/L. These data are provided to
facilitate comparison with already published data and also underscore
how similar the <50% of baseline component of our population was to
the traditionally defined <100x109/L
portion.
Incidence of Thrombocytopenia
We observed a 7.0% overall incidence of thrombocytopenia
(platelet nadir <100x109/L or relative
reduction to <50% of baseline) in the nonST-segment-elevation
population of PURSUIT. This incidence is lower than that observed in
the acute MI, thrombolytic-treated populations studied
by the TAMI group (16.4%), which used the same definition of
thrombocytopenia,3 and is higher than that in TIMI-I
(4.8%), which broadly defined thrombocytopenia as a platelet nadir
<150x109/L.15
In ACS clinical trials in which published data exist to define thrombocytopenia as a platelet nadir <100x109/L, the range of incidence of thrombocytopenia narrows considerably. In PURSUIT and EPIC, the incidences of this more conservatively defined thrombocytopenia were 4.9% and 3.9%, respectively.5 In GUSTO IIb,7 ESSENCE,6 the groups studied by TAMI,3 and the conservative arm of TIMI II,4 the rates of thrombocytopenia by this same definition were 1.0%, 3.0%, 7.3%, and 1.5%, respectively. The overall range of thrombocytopenia across these 6 large ACS clinical trials thus becomes 1.0% to 7.3%. When one allows for differences in baseline characteristics in the patient populations, duration and frequency of platelet monitoring, and varying incidences of procedure use among these studies, this range likely represents a reasonable estimate of the incidence of thrombocytopenia that can be expected in a given ACS clinical trial.
Timing of Thrombocytopenia
The median time to development of thrombocytopenia was 4
days. This is equivalent to the timing seen in TAMI3 but
longer than that seen in the more invasively treated high-risk
angioplasty population of EPIC (1.68 days for placebo versus 0.5 days
for abciximab).5 Timing data are unpublished in most other
studies of thrombocytopenia during an ACS, which makes it difficult to
infer the universality of the observed PURSUIT median time to
thrombocytopenia.
Origin of Thrombocytopenia
The treatment of patients experiencing an ACS involves a
complex mixture of pharmacological and surgical interventions that
together can obscure the underlying cause of a bout of
thrombocytopenia. Cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with the
condition because of a combination of mechanical consumption,
hemodilution, platelet filtering, and qualitative platelet
alteration16 ; and, as our model shows (Table 6
),
patients who have undergone CABG are >12 times as likely to develop
thrombocytopenia as patients who never underwent CABG. The use of
intra-aortic assist devices, thought to cause thrombocytopenia mainly
through mechanical trauma,16 was also found to more than
double risk of thrombocytopenia (OR 2.2 [1.5 to 3.2]).
Several nonsurgical interventions predispose a patient to
thrombocytopenia as well. One such intervention, heparin therapy, is
associated with thrombocytopenia via 2 mechanisms: an immune-dependent,
heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), which is mediated by
antiplatelet antibodies, and a separate nonimmune
mechanism.14 Consistent with this fact,
univariably, we found a doubling of thrombocytopenic risk
(P=0.001) in PURSUIT patients who were exposed to heparin
therapy. Furthermore, the thrombocytopenia population was more likely
to receive heparin and for a longer duration than were patients without
thrombocytopenia. When examined univariably, however, heparin use is
also confounded by procedural use, which by itself is associated with
thrombocytopenia. Therefore, to assess the independent contribution of
heparin to thrombocytopenia, we performed the regression model shown in
Table 6
, attempting to control for procedures as well as other
potentially confounding variables. In this model, we found that
heparin was no longer associated with increased thrombocytopenic risk,
regardless of whether heparin was measured as a dichotomous (heparin
use: yes/no) variable or a continuous (infusion duration: hours)
variable.
It is not entirely surprising that the use of heparin in our
model was not significantly associated with the immune type of HIT.
Typically, without recent exposure (ie, within the last 2 months), >4
days of heparin therapy is required to precipitate immune-mediated
(type II) HIT.14 17 The PURSUIT population, however, had a
median heparin exposure time of only 3.6 (2.3, 5.9; thrombocytopenia)
days and 3.2 (2.0, 4.5; nonthrombocytopenia) days and thus would not be
expected to manifest significant numbers of type II HIT. We also
compared thrombocytopenic risk in patients exposed to heparin for
5
days with those exposed for <5 days. Again, we found no increase in
the risk of developing thrombocytopenia in heparin-exposed patients,
even with prolonged durations of heparin therapy (OR 1.0
[0.8,1.2]).
Type I HIT, however, is characterized by mild declines in the platelet count (10% to 20%), with nadir platelet counts that usually exceed 100x109/L and onset within 4 days of heparin exposure.14 This disorder is not thought to have clinical significance. It is possible that some patients in PURSUIT developed type I HIT.
Other medications thought or known to have antiplatelet effects were relatively evenly distributed between thrombocytopenic and nonthrombocytopenic patients. Consistent with this observation was the nonsignificant impact all of these drugs had on our model that predicted thrombocytopenia. It is possible, however, that the total numbers involved (especially with abciximab, ticlopidine, and thrombolytics) were inadequate to provide power to detect the potential contribution of these medications to risk of thrombocytopenia.
A recent meta-analysis of thrombocytopenic risk in the context
of GP IIb/IIIa inhibition supports the concern that this new class of
drug may predispose patients to develop thrombocytopenia.8
Our data (Table 1
) show a nearly identical distribution of
thrombocytopenia between eptifibatide- and placebo-treated arms in all
severities of thrombocytopenia except profound thrombocytopenia, and
even in this group the difference did not reach statistical
significance (P=0.258). However, 5 of the 7 patients in this
group were treated with eptifibatide, and time to onset of
thrombocytopenia in eptifibatide-treated patients with severe/profound
thrombocytopenia diverges from placebo-treated patients quite early
(Figure
), leaving room for speculation that in this small subset
of patients with thrombocytopenia, eptifibatide exposure could
contribute to thrombocytopenic risk. Even if this were true, however,
only a very small subset of patients (0.1% of all patients treated)
would be at risk of developing this condition, whereas the vast
majority of nonST-elevation ACS patients appear to be at an equal
risk of developing thrombocytopenia regardless of eptifibatide
exposure. This statement is substantiated by our regression model
(Table 6
), which does not indicate any significant contribution
of eptifibatide to thrombocytopenia after controlling for confounders.
More importantly, in general, except perhaps for this group of patients
with profound thrombocytopenia, patients with thrombocytopenia who
receive eptifibatide appear to benefit from its use, just as they do in
the overall PURSUIT population.9 This conclusion is
implied by the consistent but small trend toward fewer adverse
events (except bleeding) in the eptifibatide-treated thrombocytopenic
population (Table 4
) and the absence of a significant
treatment-by-thrombocytopenia interaction term in our primary end-point
regression model.
Limitations
Our analysis clearly points toward a correlation between
thrombocytopenia and adverse events but cannot be interpreted to
establish causation. Some events preceded the development of
thrombocytopenia (eg, MI in Table 3
) and therefore cannot be
included in a model to establish the predictive (causal) power of
thrombocytopenia on negative outcomes. To establish such a model, one
must include only those events that can be shown to have occurred after
the onset of thrombocytopenia. Because of the nature of our timing
data, only death, which by definition cannot be followed by events such
as thrombocytopenia, is eligible for such a predictive model. Our
regression model for predicting death (not shown) failed to demonstrate
an increased incidence of death in patients with thrombocytopenia,
however. Whether this observation reflects a lack of a causal role of
thrombocytopenia on death or simply the low incidence of death in the
trial is difficult to establish.
A second limitation of this study is the amount of platelet count data collected during baseline hospitalization. Although the case report form allowed documentation of up to 5 platelet counts during the initial 72 to 96 hours of enrollment, only 1 platelet count determination was recorded after infusion of the study drug. Consequently, it is not possible to address several important questions, such as total thrombocytopenia duration and the time course to complete platelet recovery.
Conclusions
Nearly 1 in 14 patients with a nonST-elevation ACS enrolled in
the PURSUIT trial experienced thrombocytopenia, defined as a
platelet nadir <100x109/L or <50% of
baseline. Our analysis demonstrates that this large subset of
patients with unstable angina or nonQ-wave MI is at a significantly
increased risk of experiencing not only serious bleeding events
(moderate/severe bleeding, need for red blood cell/platelet
transfusion) but clinically significant ischemic events (death,
nonfatal MI, stroke, recurrent ischemia leading to a cardiac
procedure) as well. Because causation could not be established between
thrombocytopenia and outcomes, it would be inappropriate to infer from
this analysis that prophylactic platelet
transfusions should be administered to patients experiencing
thrombocytopenia in an attempt to decrease their risk of morbidity and
mortality. Further study is warranted, however, to refine the estimate
of magnitude of the effect of thrombocytopenia on outcomes and to
better examine its causes. In the meantime, daily platelet count
determinations should be collected in all patients experiencing an ACS
to aid in early identification of this important at-risk patient
population.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
Received July 22, 1998; revision received March 2, 1999; accepted March 29, 1999.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. A. Harrington, R. C. Becker, C. P. Cannon, D. Gutterman, A. M. Lincoff, J. J. Popma, G. Steg, G. H. Guyatt, and S. G. Goodman Antithrombotic Therapy for Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition) Chest, June 1, 2008; 133(6_suppl): 670S - 707S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. B. F. Oliveira, E. M. Crespo, R. C. Becker, E. F. Honeycutt, C. S. Abrams, K. J. Anstrom, P. B. Berger, L. D. Davidson-Ray, E. L. Eisenstein, N. S. Kleiman, et al. Incidence and Prognostic Significance of Thrombocytopenia in Patients Treated With Prolonged Heparin Therapy Arch Intern Med, January 14, 2008; 168(1): 94 - 102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. V.K. Naina, S. Harris, A. C. Matzdorff, R. Cathomas, A. Goldhirsch, R. von Moos, R. H. Aster, and D. W. Bougie Drug-Induced Immune Thrombocytopenia N. Engl. J. Med., November 1, 2007; 357(18): 1869 - 1871. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Anderson, C. D. Adams, E. M. Antman, C. R. Bridges, R. M. Califf, D. E. Casey Jr, W. E. Chavey II, F. M. Fesmire, J. S. Hochman, T. N. Levin, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) Developed in Collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 14, 2007; 50(7): e1 - e157. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. V. K. Naina, S. Harris, and A. Singla Timing of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Acute Coronary Syndromes JAMA, July 4, 2007; 298(1): 37 - 37. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Chevoya and S. Housholder-Hughes Anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications. Crit. Care Nurse, June 1, 2006; 26(3): 19 - 20. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Patel, M. Patel, I. Din, C. V. R. Reddy, and J. Kassotis Profound Thrombocytopenia Associated with Tirofiban: Case Report and Review of Literature Angiology, May 1, 2005; 56(3): 351 - 355. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. H. Matthai Jr Thrombocytopenia in Cardiovascular Patients: Diagnosis and Management Chest, February 1, 2005; 127(2_suppl): 46S - 52S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. H. Aster Immune Thrombocytopenia Caused by Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors Chest, February 1, 2005; 127(2_suppl): 53S - 59S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. A. Harrington, R. C. Becker, M. Ezekowitz, T. W. Meade, C. M. O'Connor, D. A. Vorchheimer, and G. H. Guyatt Antithrombotic Therapy for Coronary Artery Disease: The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy Chest, September 1, 2004; 126(3_suppl): 513S - 548S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. A. Merlini, M. Rossi, A. Menozzi, S. Buratti, D. M. Brennan, D. J. Moliterno, E. J. Topol, and D. Ardissino Thrombocytopenia Caused by Abciximab or Tirofiban and Its Association With Clinical Outcome in Patients Undergoing Coronary Stenting Circulation, May 11, 2004; 109(18): 2203 - 2206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. T. Williams, L. V. Damaraju, M. A. Mascelli, E. S. Barnathan, R. M. Califf, M. L. Simoons, E. N. Deliargyris, and D. C. Sane Anti-Platelet Factor 4/Heparin Antibodies: An Independent Predictor of 30-Day Myocardial Infarction After Acute Coronary Ischemic Syndromes Circulation, May 13, 2003; 107(18): 2307 - 2312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Seiffert, A. M. Stern, W. Ebling, R. J. Rossi, Y. C. Barrett, R. Wynn, G. F. Hollis, B. He, C. J. Kieras, D. L. Pedicord, et al. Prospective testing for drug-dependent antibodies reduces the incidence of thrombocytopenia observed with the small molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonist roxifiban: implications for the etiology of thrombocytopenia Blood, January 1, 2003; 101(1): 58 - 63. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. W. Bougie, P. R. Wilker, E. D. Wuitschick, B. R. Curtis, M. Malik, S. Levine, R. N. Lind, J. Pereira, and R. H. Aster Acute thrombocytopenia after treatment with tirofiban or eptifibatide is associated with antibodies specific for ligand-occupied GPIIb/IIIa Blood, August 28, 2002; 100(6): 2071 - 2076. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. T. Billheimer, I. B. Dicker, R. Wynn, J. D. Bradley, D. A. Cromley, H. E. Godonis, L. C. Grimminger, B. He, C. J. Kieras, D. L. Pedicord, et al. Evidence that thrombocytopenia observed in humans treated with orally bioavailable glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists is immune mediated Blood, May 15, 2002; 99(10): 3540 - 3546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. W. Eikelboom, S. S. Anand, S. R. Mehta, J. I. Weitz, C. Yi, and S. Yusuf Prognostic Significance of Thrombocytopenia During Hirudin and Heparin Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome Without ST Elevation : Organization to Assess Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS-2) Study Circulation, February 6, 2001; 103(5): 643 - 650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. P. Chew and D. J. Moliterno A critical appraisal of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 1, 2000; 36(7): 2028 - 2035. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. T. Roe, R. A. Harrington, D. M. Prosper, K. S. Pieper, D. L. Bhatt, A. M. Lincoff, M. L. Simoons, M. Akkerhuis, E. M. Ohman, M. M. Kitt, et al. Clinical and Therapeutic Profile of Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes Who Do Not Have Significant Coronary Artery Disease Circulation, September 5, 2000; 102(10): 1101 - 1106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Braunwald, E. M. Antman, J. W. Beasley, R. M. Califf, M. D. Cheitlin, J. S. Hochman, R. H. Jones, D. Kereiakes, J. Kupersmith, T. N. Levin, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the american college of cardiology/ american heart association task force on practice guidelines (committee on the management of patients with unstable angina) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 1, 2000; 36(3): 970 - 1062. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. A. Harrington, P. W. Armstrong, C. Graffagnino, F. Van de Werf, D. J. Kereiakes, K. N. Sigmon, T. Card, D. M. Joseph, R. Samuels, J. Granett, et al. Dose-Finding, Safety, and Tolerability Study of an Oral Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor, Lotrafiban, in Patients With Coronary or Cerebral Atherosclerotic Disease Circulation, August 15, 2000; 102(7): 728 - 735. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Poullis and I. Malik Thrombocytopenia and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors: Causation or Association? Circulation, June 27, 2000; 101 (25): e241 - e241. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| |||||||||||