Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Meta-analysis published in Perfusion (2022)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungHuang D et al. · Perfusion, 2022

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bivalirudin has been suggested as an alternative to heparin for anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Nevertheless, there is limited evidence about the benefit of bivalirudin in ECMO patients compared with heparin. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of bivalirudin versus heparin on clinical outcomes in patients receiving ECMO. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception up to 1 April 2022 for cohort studies and randomized controlled trials comparing bivalirudin versus heparin in patients who received ECMO. The primary outcome was short-term death. Secondary outcomes included thrombotic events and bleeding events. RESULTS: We selected 12 retrospective cohort studies with 1232 ECMO patients focusing on bivalirudin anticoagulation (n = 497) versus heparin anticoagulation (n = 735). Two hundred and one of 497 patients (40.4%) in the bivalirudin group versus 350 of 735 patients (47.6%) in the heparin group did not survive to hospital discharge. Compared with the heparin group, bivalirudin anticoagulation did not significantly decrease in-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79-1.13; p = 0.546). Fifty-seven of 374 patients (15.2%) in the bivalirudin versus 99 of 381 patients (26.0%) in the heparin group suffered from thrombotic events. Compared with the heparin group, bivalirudin anticoagulation did not significantly decrease the rate of thrombotic events for patients receiving ECMO (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.35; p = 0.378). However, bivalirudin anticoagulation significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding events compared to the heparin group (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.95; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with heparin anticoagulation, bivalirudin did not decrease the rates of short-term mortality and thrombotic events, but reduced the incidence of bleeding events in patients receiving ECMO.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-Analysis
Indexed MeSH termsHumansAnticoagulantsExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsPeptide FragmentsRecombinant ProteinsRetrospective StudiesThrombosis

Zusammenfassung

Meta-analysis of bivalirudin vs UFH for ECMO. Bivalirudin associated with lower circuit thrombosis and bleeding rates with greater anticoagulation stability.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This meta-analysis compared bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, analyzing 12 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1,232 patients (497 bivalirudin, 735 heparin). Bivalirudin did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality or thrombotic events compared to heparin, but it significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding events. The abstract does not discuss leeches, hirudin derivation, or hirudotherapy, so no defensible connection to ASH's domain can be drawn from this article alone. The evidence is limited to retrospective cohort studies of a pharmaceutical anticoagulant in critical care, with no leech involvement.

Zitation

Bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Huang D et al. · Perfusion, 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.