Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndrome Without St-Segment Elevation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction  Enoxaparin is a known alternative to the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the evidence about which of these medications would have the best benefit for these patients in 48 hours and 14 days is limited.

Objectives  Perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety of enoxaparin versus UFH in ACS without ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS).

Methods  PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for RCTs that compared enoxaparin versus UFH in patients with NSTE-ACS. Risk ratios (RRs) for binary endpoints were computed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was examined with I² statistics. Statistical significance was defined as P-value <0.05.

Results  Five RCTs with 17,644 patients were included, of whom 8,898 (50.4%) were treated with enoxaparin. There were no significant differences between groups in myocardial infarction (MI) at 48h (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.75-1.01) and 14 days (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.79-1.05), all-cause mortality at 48h (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.62-1.69) and 14 days (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.74-1.18), composite endpoint of death or MI at 48h (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.75-1.00) and 14 days (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.82-1.01), and urgent revascularization at 48h (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.08-1.95).

Conclusion  These findings suggest that the use of enoxaparin in the treatment of NSTE-ACS presents similar results to UFH.

Acute Coronary Syndrome; Enoxaparin; Heparin

Central Illustration
: Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndrome Without St-Segment Elevation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis