Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Review published in Journal of interventional cardiology (2017)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungSicherheit & InfektionskontrolleSpeichel-PharmakologieVillablanca PA et al. · Journal of interventional cardiology, 2017

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI). We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing PAVI. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary efficacy endpoints were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints include major and life-threatening bleed according to VARC and BARC bleeding, blood transfusion, vascular complications, and acute kidney injury. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: Three studies (n = 1690 patients) were included, one randomized trial and two observational studies. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for myocardial infarction (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.20-0.87). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.62-1.52), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.52-2.05), stroke (OR 1.23, 95%CI 0.62-2.46), vascular complications (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.70-1.32), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.53-2.00), blood transfusion (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-1.01), major and life-threatening bleed (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.37-1.49), and BARC bleeding (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.23-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: In patient undergoing aortic valve interventions, no difference was seen between the use of bivalirudin and heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent, except for a significant lower myocardial infarction events when bivalirudin was used. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm current results.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
Indexed MeSH termsAnticoagulantsAortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisBalloon ValvuloplastyHeparinHirudinsHumansPeptide FragmentsRecombinant ProteinsThromboembolismTranscatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Zusammenfassung

Bivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI).

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

This systematic review and meta-analysis (publication types: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis; 3 studies; 1,690 patients—one randomized trial and two observational) compared the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as procedural anticoagulants in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions. Bivalirudin showed significantly lower myocardial infarction rates (OR 0.41) with no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, blood transfusion, or bleeding endpoints. The authors conclude that bivalirudin and heparin are broadly comparable for PAVI anticoagulation and call for larger randomized trials to confirm results. The abstract does not mention leeches, hirudin, or hirudotherapy; its relevance to ASH's domain is therefore not established by the source text.

Zitation

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Villablanca PA et al. · Journal of interventional cardiology, 2017

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.