Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Heparin-based versus bivalirudin-based anticoagulation in pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review

Systematic review published in Frontiers in medicine (2023)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Systematic reviewArzneimittelentwicklungValdes CA et al. · Frontiers in medicine, 2023

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Optimal anticoagulation therapy is essential for the prevention of thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications in pediatric patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent data have demonstrated bivalirudin has the potential to surpass and replace heparin as the anticoagulant of choice. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review comparing the outcomes of heparin-based versus bivalirudin-based anticoagulation in pediatric patients supported on ECMO to identify the preferred anticoagulant to minimize bleeding events, thrombotic complications, and associated mortality. We referenced the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. These databases were searched from inception through October 2022. Our initial search identified 422 studies. All records were screened by two independent reviewers using the Covidence software for adherence to our inclusion criteria, and seven retrospective cohort studies were identified as appropriate for inclusion. RESULTS: In total, 196 pediatric patients were anticoagulated with heparin and 117 were anticoagulated with bivalirudin while on ECMO. Across the included studies, it was found that for patients treated with bivalirudin, trends were noted toward lower rates of bleeding, transfusion requirements, and thrombosis with no difference in mortality. Overall costs associated with bivalirudin therapy were lower. Time to therapeutic anticoagulation varied between studies though institutions had different anticoagulation targets. CONCLUSION: Bivalirudin may be a safe, cost-effective alternative to heparin in achieving anticoagulation in pediatric ECMO patients. Prospective multicenter studies and randomized control trials with standard anticoagulation targets are needed to accurately compare outcomes associated with heparin versus bivalirudin in pediatric ECMO patients.

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

Publication typeSystematic ReviewJournal Article

Zusammenfassung

Heparin-based versus bivalirudin-based anticoagulation in pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This systematic review compared heparin-based versus bivalirudin-based anticoagulation in pediatric ECMO patients, identifying seven retrospective cohort studies (196 heparin patients, 117 bivalirudin patients). The review found trends toward lower bleeding rates, transfusion requirements, thrombosis, and lower overall costs with bivalirudin, with no difference in mortality. The abstract does not mention hirudin, leeches, or any leech-derived product, so no defensible connection to ASH's hirudotherapy domain or the leech secretome can be drawn from this source. The authors concluded that bivalirudin may be a safe, cost-effective alternative but prospective multicenter randomized trials with standardized anticoagulation targets are needed.

Zitation

Heparin-based versus bivalirudin-based anticoagulation in pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review

Valdes CA et al. · Frontiers in medicine, 2023

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.