Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes: Subcutaneous Nadroparin versus Ticlopidine after Coronary Stenting

Shin, Kyoung Deok; Chae, Jei Keon; Moon, Sung Ki; Kim, Won Ho; Ko, Jae Ki

Abstract

BACKGROUNG AND OBJECTIVES: It was reported that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was more effective than unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Recent studies have shown that the pathophysiology of restenosis in stented lesions was different from those of nonstented lesions. Treatment strategies designed to limit cellular proliferation that were ineffective in nonstented lesions may be efficacious in reducing in-stent restenosis. This study was aimed to compare the clinical and angiographic results of LMWH (nadroparin) after coronary stenting with those of conventional ticlopidine regimen.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had angina and/or objective evidence of myocardial ischemia, and a significant (>50%) stenosis that was documented on a recent coronary angiogram. After stenting, prospective randomized comparison study was performed. Patients were randomly assigned to either nadroparin (200 IU/kg, sc, bid) or ticlopidine (250 mg bid) plus aspirin (200 mg qd) treatment groups. Repeat coronary angiography (KERN=*)was performed at 236+/-90days after stenting, and quantitative coronary angiographic analysis (QCA) was done.
RESULTS
Intracoronary stent implantation was performed in eighty five lesions in eighty one patients (ticlopidine:40, nadroparin:41). There was no significant difference in any baseline clinical/angiographic variables between the two treatment groups. There were no subacute stent thrombosis, infarction and death in both groups. Six-month event-free survival was 36 (90%) in the ticlopidine group and 35 (85.4%) in the nadroparin group. Follow-up quantitative angiographic data such as late loss (1.35+/-0.70 vs 1.32+/-0.69), loss index (0.53+/-0.70 vs 0.56+/-0.23) and restenosis rate (36% vs 25.8%) were not different between ticlopidine and nadroparin groups.
CONCLUSION
Effects of nadroparin were not different from those with ticlopidine therapy in the prevention of restenosis and subacute stent thorombosis after coronary stenting. Clinical outcomes between two strategies were similar. Low molecular weight heparin may be an alternative to ticlopidine in patients that ticlopidine cannot be administered because of severe adverse effects.