Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Safety and Effectiveness of Bivalirudin in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Review published in Frontiers in pharmacology (2017)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungAhmad Hamdi AH et al. · Frontiers in pharmacology, 2017

Abstract

Recent clinical trials have shown that while bivalirudin exhibits similar efficacy with heparin, it offers several advantages over heparin, such as a better safety profile. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin use during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in the treatment of angina and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Science Direct from January 1980 to January 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin to heparin during the course of PCI in patients with angina or ACS were included. Outcome measures included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding. The selection, quality assessment, and data extraction of the included trials were done independently by four authors, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A total of 12 RCTs involving 44,088 subjects were included. Bivalirudin appeared to be non-superior compared to heparin in reducing all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, and stroke. Bivalirudin appeared to be related to a higher risk of stent thrombosis when compared to heparin plus provisional use of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) at day 30 (RR 1.94 [1.16, 3.24] p < 0.01). Overall, bivalirudin-based regimens present a lesser risk of major bleeding (RR 0.56 [0.44-0.71] p < 0.001), and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding (RR 0.56 [0.43-0.73]) compared with heparin-based regimens either with provisional or routine use of a GPI. However, the magnitude of TIMI major bleeding effect varied greatly (p < 0.001), depending on whether a GPI was provisionally used (RR 0.42 [0.34-0.52] p < 0.001) or routinely used (RR 0.60 [0.43 -0.83] p < 0.001), in the heparin arm. This meta-analysis demonstrated that bivalirudin is associated with a lower risk of major bleeding, but a higher risk of stent thrombosis compared to heparin.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleReview

Zusammenfassung

Recent clinical trials have shown that while bivalirudin exhibits similar efficacy with heparin, it offers several advantages over heparin, such as a better safety profile.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials (44,088 subjects) evaluated the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared to heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention for angina or acute coronary syndrome. Bivalirudin showed non-superiority to heparin in all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, and stroke, but was associated with lower major bleeding risk and higher stent thrombosis risk. The abstract does not mention leeches, hirudin, hirudotherapy, or any leech-derived components. No direct connection to ASH's domain of hirudotherapy or the leech secretome is described in this article.

Zitation

Safety and Effectiveness of Bivalirudin in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ahmad Hamdi AH et al. · Frontiers in pharmacology, 2017

Verwandter klinischer Kontext

Zur ASH-Bibliothek hinzugefügt: May 27, 2026 · Letzte Aktualisierung der Website: June 18, 2026

Diese Website stellt Bildungsinformationen bereit und ist weder eine medizinische Beratung noch eine Diagnose oder Behandlungsempfehlung. Die medizinische Blutegeltherapie ist mit klinisch relevanten Risiken verbunden und sollte ausschließlich von qualifizierten Klinikerinnen und Klinikern unter institutionell genehmigten Protokollen durchgeführt werden. Die FDA-510(k)-Zulassung für medizinische Blutegel ist auf bestimmte Indikationen beschränkt; experimentelle und Off-Label-Diskussionen werden entsprechend gekennzeichnet. Für patientenspezifische Beratung wenden Sie sich an eine qualifizierte Gesundheitsfachkraft.