Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Experience with pharmacologic leeching with bivalirudin for adjunct treatment of venous congestion of head and neck reconstructive flaps

Retrospective study published in Microsurgery (2018)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Observational studyKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungHarun A et al. · Microsurgery, 2018

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to review the feasibility of local bivalirudin injection for adjunct treatment of venous congestion of head and neck reconstructive flaps. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent bivalirudin treatment for venous congestion of head and neck reconstructive flaps in a single institution from September 1, 2012 to September 1, 2015 was undertaken. Individuals were treated with variable number of intradermal injections directly into the flap followed by a small skin incision to allow extended passive bleeding. The main outcome measure was improvement of flap congestion. RESULTS: Ten patients with free flap reconstruction (4 anterolateral thigh flaps, 2 pectoralis major flaps, 2 fibula osseocutaneous flaps, 1 supraclavicular flap, and 1 radial forearm free flap) of various head and neck defects underwent treatment with bivalirudin. Bivalirudin injections were utilized as adjunct therapy in 6 patients. Two individuals underwent alternate therapy for venous congestion immediately following injection and therefore the efficacy could not be assessed. Of the 8 remaining flaps, 4 developed partial necrosis, and 1 developed complete necrosis requiring additional reconstruction. Two individuals required blood transfusions during bivalirudin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin is a safe and feasible adjunct therapy for treatment of flap congestion. It may serve as a useful alternative to traditional leech therapy, as bivalirudin negates the need for antibiotic prophylaxis, eliminates the psychological aversion associated with leech therapy, and avoids the potential for leech migration. Further work to determine the efficacy of bivalirudin to standard leech therapy is warranted.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntithrombinsCombined Modality TherapyFemaleFree Tissue FlapsHead and Neck NeoplasmsHirudinsHumansHyperemiaLeeching

Zusammenfassung

Single-institution retrospective study of 10 patients with bivalirudin local-injection for venous congestion of head-and-neck free flaps. 8/10 flaps assessable; 4 partial-necrosis, 1 complete-necrosis. Bivalirudin negates need for antibiotic prophylaxis.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This retrospective chart review assessed local bivalirudin injection as adjunct treatment for venous congestion of head and neck reconstructive flaps in 10 patients. Of 8 assessable flaps, 4 developed partial necrosis and 1 complete necrosis, with 2 patients requiring transfusions. The authors concluded bivalirudin is safe and feasible and may serve as a useful alternative to traditional leech therapy by avoiding antibiotic prophylaxis, psychological aversion, and leech migration. This is relevant to ASH's domain as it positions a hirudin-related anticoagulant relative to medicinal leech therapy in flap congestion management. The honest caveat is that this is a small uncontrolled series, efficacy could not be assessed in 2 patients, no head-to-head comparison with live leech therapy was conducted, and the authors explicitly call for further work to determine comparative efficacy.

Zitation

Experience with pharmacologic leeching with bivalirudin for adjunct treatment of venous congestion of head and neck reconstructive flaps.

Harun A et al. · Microsurgery, 2018

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.