Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Is anticoagulation with bivalirudin comparable to heparin for pediatric extracorporeal life support? Results from a high-volume center

Comparative study published in Artif Organs (2020)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Observational studyArzneimittelentwicklungKlinische StudienSchill MR et al. · Artificial organs, 2020

Abstract

There is a paucity of data regarding the use of direct thrombin inhibitors such as bivalirudin for children on extracorporeal life support (ECLS). We sought to compare the outcomes of children on ECLS anticoagulated with bivalirudin versus heparin. Patients transitioned from heparin to bivalirudin were treated as a separate group. A single-institution, retrospective review of all consecutive children (neonate to 18 years) placed on ECLS in the cardiac or pediatric intensive care units was performed (June 2018-December 2019). Data collected included demographics, anticoagulation strategy, number of circuit interventions, blood product use on ECLS, survival to decannulation, and survival to discharge. Fifty-four children were placed on ECLS for a total of 56 runs. Demographics and venovenous versus venoarterial ECLS were similar. The bivalirudin group had longer median duration of support compared to the heparin group--11.0 days [IQR 6.2, 23.1] versus 3.3 days [2.1, 6.2], P < .001. Patients switched from heparin to bivalirudin had a similar duration of support (10.3 days [8.3, 18.3]) as those on bilvalirudin alone. However, there was no difference in red blood cell, fresh frozen plasma, or platelet transfusions. There was no difference in the number of circuit interventions, survival to decannulation or discharge. The freedom to first circuit intervention was longer with bivalirudin compared to heparin. Our data suggest that even with longer pediatric ECLS runs on bivalirudin, there were no differences in the outcomes between the heparin and bivalirudin groups, with longer freedom from first circuit intervention with bivalirudin. While this is the largest reported series comparing children on ECLS anticoagulated with heparin versus bivalirudin, larger studies are needed to determine the optimal anticoagulation strategy for this diverse and complicated group of children.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAdolescentAnticoagulantsBlood CoagulationChildChild, PreschoolCritical IllnessDrug SubstitutionExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFemaleHemorrhageHeparinHirudins

Zusammenfassung

Largest reported series comparing pediatric ECLS bivalirudin versus heparin showing similar outcomes with longer freedom from first circuit intervention favoring bivalirudin.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This single-institution retrospective review compared outcomes of 54 children on extracorporeal life support anticoagulated with either bivalirudin, heparin, or transitioned from heparin to bivalirudin, collecting data on circuit interventions, blood product use, survival to decannulation, and survival to discharge. The authors found no significant differences between groups in transfusions, circuit interventions, or survival, though bivalirudin was associated with longer freedom from first circuit intervention despite longer median support duration (11.0 vs 3.3 days, p < 0.001). The abstract describes bivalirudin as a direct thrombin inhibitor but does not mention hirudin, leeches, or any leech-derived compound, so no defensible hirudotherapy link exists. This is a retrospective single-center study, does not involve leeches or hirudotherapy, and the authors emphasize the need for larger studies to determine optimal anticoagulation strategy.

Zitation

Is anticoagulation with bivalirudin comparable to heparin for pediatric extracorporeal life support? Results from a high-volume center.

Schill MR et al. · Artificial organs, 2020

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.