Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Anticoagulation for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia before, during, and after peripheral endovascular procedures

Narrative review published in VASA (2025)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewArzneimittelentwicklungKlinische StudienCardi S et al. · VASA — Zeitschrift fur Gefasskrankheiten, 2025

Abstract

Acute heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) type II requires the immediate discontinuation of heparin and initiation of a non-heparin anticoagulant. Lifelong avoidance of heparin is generally recommended due to the risk of recurrence. Therefore, anticoagulation management in endovascular procedures remains challenging, as heparin is the preferred anticoagulant and evidence on alternative strategies is limited. This narrative review outlines an institutional approach aligned with current guidelines and examines the available data on non-heparin anticoagulants in this setting. Current evidence may support the use of bivalirudin among non-heparin anticoagulants for peripheral endovascular interventions due to indirect evidence of its use during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute HIT. However, bivalirudin is often not available due to drug shortage and not approved for HIT in Europe. This leaves argatroban as the main alternative, particularly in patients with renal impairment. Data on non-heparin anticoagulation for HIT were extrapolated from other types of intervention and from small retrospective studies. In selected cases of patients with remote or subacute HIT B and negative antibodies, intraoperative heparin may be considered if alternative anticoagulants are not practical, particularly in emergency situations, even in this approach is controversial and not discussed in current guidelines regarding peripheral endovascular procedures. In the absence of robust evidence, anticoagulation strategies should be individualized and patients adequately informed. Further studies are necessary to optimize anticoagulant management among patients with HIT undergoing peripheral endovascular interventions.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleReview
Indexed MeSH termsHumansMaleFemaleThrombocytopeniaHeparinAnticoagulantsEndovascular ProceduresPeripheral Vascular DiseasesTreatment OutcomeBlood CoagulationRisk FactorsPeptide Fragments

Zusammenfassung

Narrative review on non-heparin anticoagulation for HIT patients undergoing peripheral endovascular procedures; supports bivalirudin (extrapolated from PCI data) and argatroban as primary alternatives, with caveats around drug shortages and renal impairment.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This narrative review outlines an institutional approach to anticoagulation for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia during peripheral endovascular procedures, focusing primarily on bivalirudin and argatroban as non-heparin alternatives. The abstract does not mention lepirudin, hirudin, leech therapy, or any leech-derived agent, instead discussing drug availability, regulatory approval, and the limited evidence from small retrospective studies extrapolated from other interventional settings. For ASH, there is no direct connection to hirudotherapy or the leech secretome in this article. The review is confined to pharmacologic anticoagulation strategies in endovascular procedures and carries no leech-specific findings or implications.

Zitation

Anticoagulation for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia before, during, and after peripheral endovascular procedures.

Cardi S et al. · VASA — Zeitschrift fur Gefasskrankheiten, 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.