Superiority of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction regardless of activated partial thromboplastin time

Background Whether the clinical superiority of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) depends on a more stable antithrombotic effect or the proportion of patients not reaching the therapeutic level with UFH has not been addressed. Methods All patients participating in the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 11B trial who received UFH and had sufficient activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) data (n = 1893) were compared with patients who received enoxaparin (n = 1938). Patients receiving UFH were divided into 3 categories depending on mean aPTT values throughout 48 hours: subtherapeutic, for those in whom the average aPTT fell below 55 seconds; therapeutic, between 55 and 85 seconds; and supratherapeutic, longer than 85 seconds. Events and bleeding rates were determined at 48 hours. Results A small portion of patients (6.7%) had a subtherapeutic average aPTT value (n = 127). Forty-seven percent of patients (n = 891) fell within the therapeutic range, and 46% were in the supratherapeutic level (n = 875). Event rates were 7.0% in the UFH group versus 5.4% with enoxaparin (P= .039). Events rates were higher in every aPTT strata compared with enoxaparin and statistically significant in the supratherapeutic group (odds ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.89). Major bleeding rates were 0%, 0.6%, and 0.9% for the subtherapeutic, target, and supratherapeutic strata, respectively, and 0.8% with enoxaparin. Minor hemorrhages occurred in 5.1% of patients receiving enoxaparin versus 3.9%, 2%, and 2.3%, respectively, for the UFH subgroups (P < .001 for all UFH groups vs enoxaparin). Conclusions Enoxaparin showed a better clinical profile compared with every level of anticoagulation with UFH. Potential mechanisms for enoxaparin superiority are stable antithrombotic activity, lack of rebound thrombosis, and intrinsic superiority.