Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Acute kidney injury in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management treated with bivalirudin vs. unfractionated heparin: insights from the MATRIX trial

Randomized controlled trial published in Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care (2021)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialArzneimittelentwicklungKlinische StudienLandi A et al. · Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care, 2021

Abstract

AIMS: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a critical complication among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive management. The value of adjunctive antithrombotic strategies, such as bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) on the risk of AKI is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 7213 patients enrolled in the MATRIX-Antithrombin and Treatment Duration study, 128 subjects were excluded due to incomplete information on serum creatinine (sCr) or end-stage renal disease on dialysis treatment. The primary endpoint was AKI defined as an absolute (>0.5 mg/dL) or a relative (>25%) increase in sCr. AKI occurred in 601 patients (16.9%) treated with bivalirudin and 616 patients (17.4%) treated with UFH [odds ratio (OR): 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.09; P = 0.58]. A >25% sCr increase was observed in 597 patients (16.8%) with bivalirudin and 616 patients (17.4%) with UFH (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.85-1.08; P = 0.50), whereas a >0.5 mg/dL absolute sCr increase occurred in 176 patients (5.0%) with bivalirudin vs. 189 patients (5.4%) with UFH (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.75-1.14; P = 0.46). By implementing the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria, the risk of AKI was not significantly different between bivalirudin and UFH groups (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.72-1.07; P = 0.21). Subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint suggested a benefit with bivalirudin in patients randomized to femoral access. CONCLUSION: Among ACS patients undergoing invasive management, the risk of AKI was not significantly lower with bivalirudin compared with UFH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01433627.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled Trial
Indexed MeSH termsAcute Coronary SyndromeAcute Kidney InjuryHeparinHirudinsHumansPeptide FragmentsRecombinant Proteins

Zusammenfassung

MATRIX subgroup of 7085 patients showed no significant difference in AKI between bivalirudin (16.9%) and UFH (17.4%); subgroup analysis suggested benefit in femoral access.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This analysis from the MATRIX trial examined acute kidney injury (AKI) risk among acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing invasive management, comparing bivalirudin to unfractionated heparin in 7,213 enrolled patients. AKI occurred in 16.9% of bivalirudin-treated and 17.4% of heparin-treated patients (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.85–1.09; P = 0.58), with no significant differences across multiple AKI definitions including KDIGO criteria. The abstract contains no mention of leeches, hirudotherapy, or any leech-derived compounds, and no defensible connection to ASH's domain can be inferred. This is a cardiology trial analysis comparing anticoagulant strategies with respect to renal outcomes.

Zitation

Acute kidney injury in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management treated with bivalirudin vs. unfractionated heparin: insights from the MATRIX trial.

Landi A et al. · Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care, 2021

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.