Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bivalirudin Versus Heparin on Myocardial Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Review published in The American journal of cardiology (2016)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungBarria Perez et al. · The American journal of cardiology, 2016

Abstract

Bivalirudin is an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Previously, we have reported clinical benefit on major bleeding in favor of bivalirudin compared with UFH monotherapy but inconclusive results on mortality. Controversial data have been reported in the last 2 years. We conducted an updated meta-analysis including randomized trials and observational studies, which evaluated ischemic and bleeding outcomes for bivalirudin compared with UFH-only during percutaneous coronary intervention. We included 18 observational studies and 12 randomized trials published from 2003 to 2015. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days including death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization and stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and transfusion. Overall, we found a significant risk reduction with bivalirudin for major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 0.71, p <0.0001) and for transfusion (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95, p = 0.01) and similar risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12, p = 0.80). However, there was a substantial increased risk of stent thrombosis associated with bivalirudin (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.08, p = 0.009). No impact on mortality was found. Meta-regression analyses on major bleeding suggested that bivalirudin was more effective than UFH at doses >60 IU/kg and independent of radial access. In conclusion, compared with UFH monotherapy, bivalirudin remains associated with less bleeding risk but higher stent thrombosis risk. Further study remains required to define its role in current antithrombotic armamentarium.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisReview
Indexed MeSH termsAntithrombinsFibrinolytic AgentsGlobal HealthHeparinHirudinsHumansIncidenceMyocardial IschemiaPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPostoperative HemorrhageRecombinant Proteins

Zusammenfassung

Bivalirudin is an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Previously, we have reported clinical benefit on major bleeding in favor of bivalirudin compared with UFH monotherapy but inconclusive results on mortality.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This meta-analysis of 30 studies (18 observational, 12 randomized trials) compared bivalirudin against unfractionated heparin monotherapy during percutaneous coronary intervention, reporting that bivalirudin was associated with significantly reduced major bleeding and transfusion risk but a substantially increased risk of stent thrombosis, with no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events or mortality. The abstract describes bivalirudin only as an alternative anticoagulant and does not mention hirudin, leeches, hirudotherapy, or any connection to the leech secretome. There is no defensible leech link in this article.

Zitation

Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bivalirudin Versus Heparin on Myocardial Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Barria Perez et al. · The American journal of cardiology, 2016

Verwandter klinischer Kontext

Zur ASH-Bibliothek hinzugefügt: May 28, 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.