Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Bivalirudin versus heparin for percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Meta-analysis published in Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions (2014)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisArzneimittelentwicklungLipinski MJ et al. · Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions, 2014

Abstract

AIMS: Given controversy over anticoagulation regimens for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare bivalirudin versus heparin. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medline/Pubmed and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for all RCTs comparing bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) use versus heparin with provisional or routine GPI use for PCI. Pooled estimates of 30day outcomes, presented as risk ratios (RR) [95% confidence intervals], were generated with random-effect models. Our analysis included 14 studies with 30,446 patients that were randomized to bivalirudin with provisional GPI use (n=14,869) versus heparin with provisional (n=6451) or routine GPI use (n=9126). There was no significant difference between anticoagulation with bivalirudin compared with heparin for death (RR 0.95 [0.78-1.14]) or myocardial infarction (RR 1.10 [0.97-1.25]). Early stent thrombosis was significantly greater with bivalirudin compared with heparin (RR 1.61 [1.18-2.20], p=0.003), especially in patients undergoing primary PCI (2.15 [1.15-4.03], p=0.02). However, bivalirudin reduced the risk of major bleeding (RR 0.59 [0.51-0.70], p<0.0001) and TIMI major bleeding (RR 0.59 [0.48-0.72], p<0.0001) compared with heparin. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that bleeding risk with use of heparin significantly increases with increasing GPI use (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs with 30,446 patients demonstrated that bivalirudin is associated with higher risk of stent thrombosis but lower risk of major bleeding compared with heparin.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal ArticleMeta-Analysis
Indexed MeSH termsAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryAnticoagulantsAntithrombinsHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsHumansMyocardial InfarctionOdds RatioPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPlatelet Aggregation Inhibitors

Zusammenfassung

Given controversy over anticoagulation regimens for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare bivalirudin versus heparin.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (30,446 patients) compared bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use versus heparin with provisional or routine GPI use for percutaneous coronary intervention. Pooled 30-day outcomes showed no significant difference in death or myocardial infarction between groups, but bivalirudin was associated with higher early stent thrombosis (especially in primary PCI) and lower major and TIMI major bleeding compared with heparin. The abstract itself makes no mention of hirudin, leeches, or any leech-derived component, and does not characterize bivalirudin's relationship to hirudin. Accordingly, no defensible connection to hirudotherapy, the leech secretome, or ASH's domain can be drawn from this source alone.

Zitation

Bivalirudin versus heparin for percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Lipinski MJ et al. · Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions, 2014

DOI

Verwandter klinischer Kontext

Erfahren Sie, wie diese Forschung mit der klinischen Praxis verknüpft ist

Drug PipelineDrug DevelopmentDirect Thrombin InhibitorsHirudinAnticoagulation CompoundsBivalirudinHemostasisDermatological ApplicationsDermatologyOtolaryngology

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.