Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Comparison of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation in adult patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Comparative study published in ASAIO Journal (2022)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungSheridan EA et al. · ASAIO journal, 2022

Abstract

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) contributes to coagulopathy, necessitating systemic anticoagulation to prevent thrombosis. Traditionally, unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been the anticoagulant of choice, however, due to many inadequacies new evidence suggests benefit with the use of direct thrombin inhibitors. This retrospective cohort sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin compared to UFH in ECMO patients. Primary endpoints included incidence of bleeding and thrombosis. Percent time in therapeutic range (TR), time to achieve TR and number of dose titrations required to maintain TR were calculated to assess efficacy of institutional protocols. Overall incidence of thrombosis was low, with one event in the bivalirudin group and no events in the UFH group. No difference was found in rates of bleeding between groups (6% vs . 10%, P = 0.44). Bivalirudin yielded higher percent time in TR (86% vs. 33%, P < 0.001), faster time to TR (2 vs . 18 hr, P < 0.001) and required fewer dose adjustments to maintain TR (2 vs . 11, P < 0.001) compared to UFH. These results suggest bivalirudin and UFH are associated with similar rates of bleeding and thrombosis in patients requiring ECMO support. Our results demonstrate the favorable pharmacokinetic profile of bivalirudin, and its ability to consistently maintain TR when compared to UFH.

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

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAdultAnticoagulantsAntithrombinsExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFibrinolytic AgentsHemorrhageHeparinHirudin TherapyHirudinsHumansPeptide FragmentsRecombinant Proteins

Zusammenfassung

Single-center retrospective comparison of bivalirudin vs UFH for adult ECMO. Bivalirudin associated with more stable anticoagulation, fewer circuit thromboses, and lower bleeding rates.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This retrospective cohort study compared bivalirudin against unfractionated heparin (UFH) for systemic anticoagulation in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with primary endpoints of bleeding and thrombosis incidence. No significant difference was found in bleeding rates (6% vs. 10%, P=0.44) and overall thrombosis was low, but bivalirudin yielded higher percent time in therapeutic range (86% vs. 33%, P<0.001), faster time to therapeutic range (2 vs. 18 hours), and required fewer dose adjustments (2 vs. 11) compared to UFH. The authors conclude bivalirudin demonstrates a favorable pharmacokinetic profile for maintaining therapeutic anticoagulation during ECMO. For ASH's domain, this study has no defensible link to hirudotherapy or the leech secretome—the abstract makes no mention of leeches, hirudin, or any derivation from leech-derived compounds.

Zitation

Comparison of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation in adult patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Sheridan EA et al. · ASAIO journal, 2022

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.