Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Heparin versus bivalirudin for anticoagulation in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic review and meta-analysis published in ASAIO Journal (2023)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungWieruszewski PM et al. · ASAIO journal, 2023

Abstract

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) poses unique thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks, and the optimal anticoagulant choice is unknown. We systematically searched Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection for randomized-, crossover-, retrospective cohort-, or parallel-designed clinical studies of adult patients receiving ECMO that compared heparin recipients with bivalirudin recipients. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects models. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Six retrospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative summary. Five studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Those who received heparin were more likely to experience circuit-related thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-3.37, p = 0.005, I2 = 0%) and die (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.19-2.21, p = 0.002, I2 = 0%) compared with those who received bivalirudin. There were no differences in major bleeding events between heparin and bivalirudin recipients (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.55-6.09, p = 0.33, I2 = 82.7%). In retrospective settings compared with heparin anticoagulation, bivalirudin was associated with less circuit-related thrombotic events and greater survival in adults supported on ECMO, without contributing to more bleeding complications. Prospective controlled studies comparing heparin and bivalirudin in adult ECMO patients are warranted to corroborate these findings.

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

Publication typeMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAdultHumansAnticoagulantsExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHeparinHirudinsPeptide FragmentsProspective StudiesRecombinant ProteinsRetrospective StudiesThrombosisHirudin Therapy

Zusammenfassung

Meta-analysis of bivalirudin vs heparin in adult ECMO. Bivalirudin associated with fewer thromboses, similar bleeding, and improved time within target aPTT range.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared heparin versus bivalirudin anticoagulation in adult patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, pooling data from six retrospective observational studies (five suitable for meta-analysis). Patients receiving heparin were significantly more likely to experience circuit-related thrombosis and death compared to bivalirudin recipients, with no significant difference in major bleeding events between groups. The abstract does not discuss leeches, hirudin derivation, or hirudotherapy, so no defensible connection to ASH's domain can be established from this article alone. The evidence base is entirely retrospective and observational, and the study involves a pharmaceutical anticoagulant in critical care rather than leech therapy.

Zitation

Heparin versus bivalirudin for anticoagulation in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wieruszewski PM et al. · ASAIO journal, 2023

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.