Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Sex-related response to bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A subgroup analysis of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.

Randomized controlled trial published in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care (2018)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungVenetsanos et al. · European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2018

Abstract

AIMS: Our aim was to study the impact of sex on anticoagulant treatment outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of the Bivalirudin versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated according to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial (VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART) trial, in which patients with myocardial infarction were randomised to bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days. RESULTS: There was a lower risk of the primary outcome in women assigned to bivalirudin than to unfractionated heparin (13.6% vs 17.1%, hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval (0.60-1.00)) with no significant difference in men (11.8% vs 11.2%, hazard ratio 1.06 (0.89-1.26), p for interaction 0.05). The observed difference was primarily due to lower risk of major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition 2, 3 or 5) associated with bivalirudin in women (8.9% vs 11.8%, hazard ratio 0.74 (0.54-1.01)) but not in men (8.5% vs 7.3%, hazard ratio 1.16 (0.94-1.43) in men, p for interaction 0.02). Conversely, no significant difference in the risk of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding, associated with bivalirudin, was found in women 4.5% vs 5.4% (hazard ratio 0.84 (0.54-1.31)) or men 2.9% vs 2.1% (hazard ratio 1.36 (0.93-1.99)). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2 bleeding occurred significantly less often in women assigned to bivalirudin than to unfractionated heparin. The risk of death or myocardial infarction did not significantly differ between randomised treatments in men or women. CONCLUSION: In women, bivalirudin was associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes, compared to unfractionated heparin, primarily due to a significant reduction in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2 bleeds.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
Indexed MeSH termsAcute DiseaseAdministration, IntravenousAgedAnticoagulantsAntithrombinsFemaleHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Zusammenfassung

Our aim was to study the impact of sex on anticoagulant treatment outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients. This study was a prespecified analysis of the Bivalirudin versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in...

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

Contributes clinical evidence relevant to leech therapy, microsurgical flap salvage, and anticoagulation practice.

Zitation

Sex-related response to bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A subgroup analysis of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.

Venetsanos et al. · European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2018

Verwandter klinischer Kontext

Zur ASH-Bibliothek hinzugefügt: May 28, 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.