Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Is routine post-procedural anticoagulation warranted after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction? Insights from the HORIZONS-AMI trial

Research article published in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care (2015)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialArzneimittelentwicklungMadhavan MV et al. · European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2015

Abstract

AIM: Post-procedural anticoagulation (AC) for routine prophylaxis may be administered after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but the risks and benefits of this practice are uncertain. We therefore sought to assess the utility of routine post-procedural AC after primary PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing primary PCI in the Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) trial were grouped according to whether they received post-PCI AC for routine prophylaxis. Outcomes were assessed using propensity-adjusted multivariable analysis. Among 2932 patients in whom primary PCI for STEMI was performed, 869 (29.6%) received post-PCI AC for routine prophylaxis (median duration four days) and 2063 (70.4%) received no post-PCI AC. Time from PCI to ambulation was similar in both groups (median 0.9 vs 1.0 days, p=0.40), although hospitalization was prolonged in patients receiving AC for routine prophylaxis (median 6.0 vs 4.0 days, p<0.0001). After propensity-adjustment, patients who received and did not receive AC for routine prophylaxis after PCI experienced similar rates of 30-day adverse ischemic and major bleeding events. Deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary emboli developed rarely (0.3%) within 30 days, and were not significantly reduced by use of post-PCI AC for routine prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale prospective study, use of post-procedural AC for routine prophylaxis was relatively common, and was not associated with improved clinical outcomes, although the duration of hospitalization was prolonged. These data suggest that post-PCI AC for routine prophylaxis may not provide benefit after successful primary PCI in patients in whom early ambulation is likely.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
Indexed MeSH termsAgedAntithrombinsAspirinClopidogrelDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Therapy, CombinationDrug-Eluting StentsElectrocardiographyFemaleFibrinolytic AgentsFollow-Up StudiesHeparin

Zusammenfassung

Is routine post-procedural anticoagulation warranted after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction? Insights from the HORIZONS-AMI trial.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This study examined the utility of routine post-procedural anticoagulation for prophylaxis after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, using a propensity-adjusted multivariable comparison within the HORIZONS-AMI trial population. The authors report that routine post-procedural anticoagulation was not associated with improved clinical outcomes, including adverse ischemic events, major bleeding, or deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, while hospitalization duration was prolonged. The topic of systemic anticoagulation is pharmacologically adjacent to the leech secretome, but the study evaluates standard cardiovascular drug therapies rather than leech-derived substances. Therefore, this work has no direct relevance to hirudotherapy or the leech secretome.

Zitation

Is routine post-procedural anticoagulation warranted after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction? Insights from the HORIZONS-AMI trial

Madhavan MV et al. · European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2015

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.