Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Safety and Efficacy of Bivalirudin as a Heparin Alternative in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting

Observational / propensity-matched published in Ann Vasc Surg (2025)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Observational studyArzneimittelentwicklungSicherheit & InfektionskontrolleKania TA et al. · Annals of vascular surgery, 2025

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) are commonly used to treat carotid stenosis. However, the need for heparin alternatives during these procedures and their impact on outcomes remain unclear. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin, the most commonly used heparin alternative, compared to heparin. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried for carotid artery stenting procedures performed from 2010 to 2022. Propensity-matched analyses compared outcomes between patients receiving intraprocedural heparin and those receiving bivalirudin. Primary outcomes were postoperative neurological events, including stroke or transient ischemic attack, and bleeding. Secondary outcomes included 30-day rates of reintervention and myocardial infarction, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: Among 80,172 carotid artery stenting procedures, 2,789 (3.47%) were performed with bivalirudin. In the heparin group, 24,797 (34.1%) underwent TFCAS with distal embolic protection, while 47,961 (65.9%) underwent TCAR with flow reversal. In the bivalirudin group, 2,494 (91.2%) underwent TFCAS, and 240 (8.8%) underwent TCAR. Propensity matching created 2 cohorts of 957 patients each. There were no significant differences in neurological events (odds ratio, [OR]: 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-2.86; P = 0.30), bleeding (OR: 1.0, 95% CI: 0.53-1.90; P = 1.00), 30-day mortality (OR: 2.05, 95% CI: 0.62-6.85; P = 0.24), or 1-year mortality (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 0.84-2.24; P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Bivalirudin is a safe and effective alternative to heparin for patients with contraindications to heparin undergoing carotid artery stenting. These findings suggest no significant differences in outcomes, supporting bivalirudin as a viable anticoagulation option.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleComparative Study
Indexed MeSH termsHumansHirudinsMaleFemaleAgedRecombinant ProteinsPeptide FragmentsHeparinTreatment OutcomeStentsCarotid StenosisRegistries

Zusammenfassung

Propensity-matched analysis from the Vascular Quality Initiative registry (80,172 procedures, 2,789 with bivalirudin) showing no significant differences in neurological events, bleeding, or mortality between bivalirudin and heparin during carotid stenting.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This propensity-matched analysis from the Vascular Quality Initiative registry (2010–2022) compared bivalirudin against heparin among 80,172 carotid artery stenting procedures (2,789 with bivalirudin), with 957 matched pairs showing no significant differences in neurological events, bleeding, 30-day mortality, or 1-year mortality. The authors conclude bivalirudin is a safe and effective heparin alternative for patients with heparin contraindications undergoing carotid artery stenting. For ASH's domain, this study has no direct relevance to hirudotherapy or the leech secretome—the abstract describes bivalirudin only as "the most commonly used heparin alternative" without any reference to leeches, hirudin, or molecular origins. Any link to hirudotherapy would require external knowledge not present in this abstract.

Zitation

Safety and Efficacy of Bivalirudin as a Heparin Alternative in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting.

Kania TA et al. · Annals of vascular surgery, 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.