Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes

Comparative review published in Critical Pathways in Cardiology (2025)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungKrittanawong C et al. · Critical pathways in cardiology, 2025

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Data on outcomes between unfractionated heparin and bivalirudin anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndromes remain inconclusive. We aimed to systematically analyze PCI outcomes by comparing unfractionated heparin and bivalirudin. METHODS: We systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception in 1966 through January 2024 for studies evaluating PCI outcomes comparing unfractionated heparin and bivalirudin. Two investigators independently reviewed the data. Conflicts were resolved through consensus. Random-effects meta-analyses were used. RESULTS: A total of 10 prospective trials were identified that enrolled 42,253 individuals who presented with an acute coronary syndrome. Our analysis found that heparin when compared to bivalirudin was associated with an increased risk of trial-based definition of major bleeding [relative risk (RR): 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.20], nonaccess site complications (RR: 4.6, 95% CI: 1.75-12.09), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.20-2.41), major bleeding risks (RR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.49-2.36), cardiovascular disease death (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.02-1.57), and thrombocytopenia (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.07-2.62). There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and bivalirudin for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular event, stroke, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization, and acute or stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis demonstrates bivalirudin reduces major bleeding when used for anticoagulation during PCI in patients with acute coronary syndromes and is not associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis or major adverse cardiovascular event.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
Indexed MeSH termsHumansHirudinsAcute Coronary SyndromeHeparinPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPeptide FragmentsRecombinant ProteinsAntithrombinsAnticoagulantsHemorrhage

Zusammenfassung

Modern review comparing bivalirudin vs heparin in ACS PCI through the BRIGHT-4 era, with practical algorithm for selection by bleeding risk and dosing strategy.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

Up-to-date practical clinical algorithm for leech-derivative use in ACS PCI.

Zitation

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes.

Krittanawong C et al. · Critical pathways in cardiology, 2025

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.