Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Alternative anticoagulants in heparin-sensitive patients undergoing carotid artery interventions: A scoping review

Scoping review published in J Vasc Surg (2026)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewArzneimittelentwicklungSicherheit & InfektionskontrolleDmitriev AP et al. · Journal of vascular surgery, 2026

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Systemic unfractionated heparin (UFH) is routinely administered as procedural anticoagulation during carotid artery procedures. However, types I, II, and IV hypersensitivity to heparin can occur amongst patients with carotid artery disease who require carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS). Although rapid-acting nonheparin alternatives are available, their use for procedural anticoagulation in patients with suspected heparin hypersensitivity undergoing carotid intervention has not been thoroughly studied. We sought to evaluate the safety of nonheparin anticoagulant use in carotid artery interventions. METHODS: A PRISMA-structured scoping review was done to evaluate the outcomes of carotid interventions performed with nonheparin intraoperative anticoagulation. To do so, primary literature published between 1993 and 2025 was obtained using structured searches of PubMed, OVID Medline, and OVID Embase. Studies were included if they assessed major adverse cardiovascular events and excessive bleeding associated with nonheparin anticoagulation in CEA and CAS and were excluded if they did not have a primary focus on surgical outcomes or were not original research. Data on study characteristics, patient population, intervention, and clinical outcomes were extracted and summarized using a narrative synthesis to identify trends in the incidence and type of complication for a given alternative anticoagulant relative to UFH. RESULTS: A total of 90 deduplicated citations were identified, of which 21 met the criteria for inclusion. Eleven studies evaluated bivalirudin, six evaluated argatroban, and four evaluated low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The bivalirudin literature included three case reports describing its use in CEA, as well as two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies on its use in CAS. Bivalirudin was found to be safe for carotid procedures and was associated with less bleeding compared with UFH. Argatroban use was described in five case reports of CEA and one of CAS, none of which reported adverse events. Finally, two prospective randomized controlled trials, a retrospective cohort study, and a case series compared different LMWHs with UFH in CEA and found no significant difference in thrombotic or hemorrhagic events between the two treatment groups, but did note a lower risk of embolism with LMWH. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected UFH hypersensitivity requiring carotid intervention, bivalirudin appears to be a safe alternative, while argatroban and LMWH may represent acceptable options based on limited available evidence. Bivalirudin, in particular, is associated with less perioperative bleeding and no increase in periprocedural complications.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleScoping ReviewReview
Indexed MeSH termsHumansAnticoagulantsHeparinEndarterectomy, CarotidCarotid Artery DiseasesTreatment OutcomeArginineStentsDrug HypersensitivityHemorrhageRisk FactorsHirudins

Zusammenfassung

Scoping review of non-heparin anticoagulant strategies (bivalirudin, argatroban, lepirudin-derived agents) in patients with heparin allergy or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia undergoing carotid endarterectomy or stenting.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This scoping review evaluated 21 studies (1993–2025) on the safety of non-heparin procedural anticoagulants—bivalirudin, argatroban, and low-molecular-weight heparin—for patients with suspected heparin hypersensitivity undergoing carotid endarterectomy or stenting. Bivalirudin was found safe with less perioperative bleeding compared with unfractionated heparin, while argatroban and LMWH were deemed acceptable based on limited evidence. The abstract does not mention hirudin, leeches, or leech therapy at any point, and no defensible connection to hirudotherapy or the leech secretome can be drawn from this article's own text. The study is therefore not relevant to ASH's domain beyond the general topic of anticoagulant alternatives.

Zitation

Alternative anticoagulants in heparin-sensitive patients undergoing carotid artery interventions: A scoping review.

Dmitriev AP et al. · Journal of vascular surgery, 2026

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.