Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Retrospective, Single-Center Cohort Study of Bivalirudin Compared to Unfractionated Heparin in Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Clinical research published in Ann Pharmacother (2025)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Observational studyArzneimittelentwicklungSicherheit & InfektionskontrolleLofy T et al. · The Annals of pharmacotherapy, 2025

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), a form of temporary mechanical circulatory support, causes a prothrombotic state due to activation of inflammatory processes via exposure of blood to the circuit. Systemic anticoagulation is recommended to prevent thrombosis. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) are anticoagulant agents that inactivate thrombin; however, UFH requires antithrombin III (ATIII) for its activity, and patients supported by ECMO are at risk for acquired ATIII deficiency. In addition, heparin may cause heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, complicating therapy. Guidelines on anticoagulant use in ECMO reference UFH as a recommended agent with DTIs as an alternative option. Meta-analyses comparing the 2 agents in ECMO have evaluated efficacy and safety; however, discordant results prompt the need for additional research. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate differences in bleeding and thrombotic events between UFH and bivalirudin for anticoagulation during ECMO support. METHODS: This study is a retrospective, single-center cohort study conducted at a primary ECMO center and a tertiary academic medical center. RESULTS: Bleeding and systemic thrombosis rates were not different between bivalirudin and UFH (30 vs 33 events, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.55-1.47, P = 0.7; 12 vs 17 events, HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.32-1.42, P = 0.3); however, when controlled for covariates, device thrombosis was lower with bivalirudin (30.2% vs 43.4%, P = 0.017). Time in therapeutic range (TTR) was higher with bivalirudin (69.98% vs 55.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: When compared to heparin, bivalirudin for anticoagulation in ECMO was associated with a decreased rate of device thrombosis and greater TTR.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleComparative Study
Indexed MeSH termsHumansHirudinsExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHeparinPeptide FragmentsRecombinant ProteinsRetrospective StudiesMaleFemaleMiddle AgedThrombosisAnticoagulants

Zusammenfassung

Single-center retrospective cohort comparing bivalirudin to unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Documents bleeding, thrombotic events, and circuit complications.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This retrospective, single-center cohort study compared bivalirudin with unfractionated heparin for systemic anticoagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), reporting that bivalirudin was associated with lower device thrombosis rates (30.2% vs. 43.4%, P=0.017) and a higher time in therapeutic range (69.98% vs. 55.5%, P<0.001), with no significant difference in overall bleeding or systemic thrombosis. The abstract identifies bivalirudin as a direct thrombin inhibitor but does not mention hirudin, leeches, or leech therapy. No defensible connection to hirudotherapy or the leech secretome can be drawn from this abstract alone, as it contains no reference to any leech-derived compound. The study is therefore not directly relevant to ASH's domain.

Zitation

Retrospective, Single-Center Cohort Study of Bivalirudin Compared to Unfractionated Heparin in Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Lofy T et al. · The Annals of pharmacotherapy, 2025

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.