Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Assessing the external validity of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial

Research article published in Clin Trials (2021)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportKlinische StudienSicherheit & InfektionskontrolleRylance RT et al. · Clin Trials, 2021

Abstract

AIMS: The VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial was a registry-based randomized trial comparing bivalirudin and heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. It showed no differences in mortality at 30 or 180 days. This study examines how well the trial population results may generalize to the population of all screened patients with fulfilled inclusion criteria in regard to mortality at 30 and 180 days. METHODS: The standardized difference in the mean propensity score for trial inclusion between trial population and the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria was calculated as a metric of similarity. Propensity scores were then used in an inverse-probability weighted Cox regression analysis using the trial population only to estimate the difference in mortality as it would have been had the trial included all screened patients with fulfilled inclusion criteria. Patients who were very likely to be included were weighted down and those who had a very low probability of being in the trial were weighted up. RESULTS: The propensity score difference was 0.61. There were no significant differences in mortality between bivalirudin and heparin in the inverse-probability weighted analysis (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval (0.73, 1.68)) at 30 days or 180 days (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval (0.70, 1.36)). CONCLUSION: The propensity score difference demonstrated that the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria and trial population were not similar. The inverse-probability weighted analysis showed no significant differences in mortality. From this, we conclude that the VALIDATE results may be generalized to the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsAnticoagulantsHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsHumansMyocardial InfarctionPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecombinant ProteinsTreatment Outcome

Zusammenfassung

Propensity score weighted analysis assessed external validity of VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial; results may be generalized to screened not-enrolled population with no significant differences in mortality.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This study assessed the external validity of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial — which compared bivalirudin versus heparin in acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention — by using propensity score weighting to compare trial participants with screened but not-enrolled patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria. The propensity score difference of 0.61 indicated the two populations were not similar, but the inverse-probability weighted analysis showed no significant mortality differences between bivalirudin and heparin at 30 or 180 days. The abstract contains no mention of leeches, hirudotherapy, or any leech-derived compounds, so no defensible connection to ASH's domain can be inferred. This is a methodological generalizability analysis of a cardiology trial.

Zitation

Assessing the external validity of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.

Rylance RT et al. · Clin Trials, 2021

Verwandter klinischer Kontext

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

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.