Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Efficiency and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention via radial access: A subgroup analysis from the bivalirudin in acute myocardial infarction versus heparin and GPI plus heparin trial

Randomized controlled trial published in Catheter Cardiovasc Interv (2016)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialArzneimittelentwicklungKlinische StudienWang H et al. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2016

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore the efficiency and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention via radial access. BACKGROUND: Bivalirudin reduces bleeding risks over heparin in patients undergoing PCI. However, bleeding advantages of bivalirudin in patients undergoing transradial intervention is uncertain. METHODS: In the BRIGHT trial, 1,723 patients underwent emergency PCI via radial access, with 576 patients in the bivalirudin arm, 576 in the heparin arm and 571 in the heparin plus tirofiban arm. The primary outcome was 30-day net adverse clinical event (NACE), defined as a composite of major cardiac and cerebral events or any bleeding. RESULTS: 30-day NACE occurred in 5.7% with bivalirudin, 7.8% with heparin alone (vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.159), and 10.3% with heparin plus tifofiban (vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.004). The 30-day bleeding rate was 0.9% for bivalirudin, 2.3% for heparin (vs. bivalirudin, P = 0.057), and 5.8% for heparin plus tirofiban (vs. bivalirudin, P < 0.001). Major cardiac and cerebral events (4.9 vs. 5.7 vs. 4.6%, P = 0.899), stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.5 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.899) and acquired thrombocytopenia (0.2 vs. 0.5 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.257) at 30 days were similar among three arms. The interaction test for PCI access and randomized treatment showed no significance on all bleeding (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The bleeding benefit of bivalirudin was independent of artery access. Bivalirudin lead to statistical reduction on bleeding risks in comparison to heparin plus tirofiban, and only small numerical difference in comparison to heparin, with comparable risks of ischemic events and stent thrombosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing emergency transradial PCI. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 termsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsAntithrombinsCardiac CatheterizationChinaEmergenciesFemaleHemorrhageHirudins

Zusammenfassung

To explore the efficiency and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention via radial access.

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

The BRIGHT trial examined bivalirudin versus heparin or heparin plus tirofiban in 1,723 patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention via radial access for acute myocardial infarction, with the primary outcome of 30-day net adverse clinical events (NACE). Bivalirudin showed a statistically significant reduction in 30-day bleeding compared with heparin plus tirofiban (0.9% vs. 5.8%, P < 0.001), while ischemic events, stent thrombosis, and thrombocytopenia were comparable across arms; the bleeding benefit was independent of artery access. The abstract provides no information about leeches, hirudotherapy, or any leech-derived compounds, and no defensible connection to ASH's domain can be drawn from this source. This study is solely a pharmacological comparison of anticoagulant regimens in interventional cardiology.

Zitation

Efficiency and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention via radial access: A subgroup analysis from the bivalirudin in acute myocardial infarction versus heparin and GPI plus heparin trial.

Wang H et al. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2016

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.