Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Argatroban versus Lepirudin in critically ill patients (ALicia): a randomized controlled trial

Randomized controlled trial published in Critical Care (2014)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungSicherheit & InfektionskontrolleTreschan TA et al. · Critical Care, 2014

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Critically ill patients often require renal replacement therapy accompanied by thrombocytopenia. Thrombocytopenia during heparin anticoagulation may be due to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with need for alternative anticoagulation. Therefore, we compared argatroban and lepirudin in critically ill surgical patients. METHODS: Following institutional review board approval and written informed consent, critically ill surgical patients more than or equal to 18 years with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, were randomly assigned to receive double-blind argatroban or lepirudin anticoagulation targeting an activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT) of 1.5 to 2 times baseline. In patients requiring continuous renal replacement therapy we compared the life-time of hemodialysis filters. We evaluated in all patients the incidence of bleeding and thrombembolic events. RESULTS: We identified 66 patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, including 28 requiring renal replacement therapy. Mean filter lifetimes did not differ between groups (argatroban 32 ± 25 hours (n = 12) versus lepirudin 27 ± 21 hours (n = 16), mean difference 5 hours, 95% CI -13 to 23, P = 0.227). Among all 66 patients, relevant bleeding occurred in four argatroban- versus eleven lepirudin-patients (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 14.0, P = 0.040). In the argatroban-group, three thromboembolic events occurred compared to two in the lepirudin group (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.4, P = 0.639). The incidence of confirmed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was 23% (n = 15) in our study population. CONCLUSIONS: This first randomized controlled double-blind trial comparing two direct thrombin inhibitors showed comparable effectiveness for renal replacement therapy, but suggests fewer bleeds in surgical patients with argatroban anticoagulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT00798525. Registered 25 November 2008.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsAntithrombinsArginineCritical IllnessFemaleHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsHumansMale

Zusammenfassung

First randomized double-blind head-to-head trial of two direct thrombin inhibitors in 66 critically ill surgical patients with suspected HIT; argatroban and lepirudin showed comparable hemodialysis-filter lifetimes but argatroban had significantly fewer bleeding events (4 vs 11, OR 3.9).

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This randomized controlled double-blind trial compared argatroban and lepirudin in 66 critically ill surgical patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, targeting an aPTT of 1.5 to 2 times baseline. Among 28 patients requiring continuous renal replacement therapy, hemodialysis filter lifetimes were comparable between groups, but relevant bleeding occurred significantly more often with lepirudin (11 events) than argatroban (4 events; OR 3.9, P = 0.040). The abstract does not describe lepirudin's relationship to hirudin or mention leeches, so a hirudotherapy connection is not supported by the abstract text. Only 23% had confirmed HIT, and the sample is relatively small, which may limit generalizability.

Zitation

Argatroban versus Lepirudin in critically ill patients (ALicia): a randomized controlled trial.

Treschan TA et al. · Critical Care, 2014

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.