Assessing the cardiology community position on transradial intervention and the use of bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: results of an EAPCI survey

AIMS: Our aim was to report on a survey initiated by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) collecting the opinion of the cardiology community on the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), before and after the MATRIX trial presentation at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2015 Scientific Sessions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A web-based survey was distributed to all individuals registered on the EuroIntervention mailing list (n=15,200). A total of 572 and 763 physicians responded to the pre- and post-ACC survey, respectively. The radial approach emerged as the preferable access site for ACS patients undergoing invasive management with roughly every other responder interpreting the evidence for mortality benefit as definitive and calling for a guidelines upgrade to class I. The most frequently preferred anticoagulant in ACS patients remains unfractionated heparin (UFH), due to higher costs and greater perceived thrombotic risks associated with bivalirudin. However, more than a quarter of participants declared the use of bivalirudin would increase after MATRIX. CONCLUSIONS: The MATRIX trial reinforced the evidence for a causal association between bleeding and mortality and triggered consensus on the superiority of the radial versus femoral approach. The belief that bivalirudin mitigates bleeding risk is common, but UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant based on lower costs and thrombotic risks.

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

In an EAPCI survey answered by 572 and 763 physicians before and after the MATRIX presentation, the radial approach emerged as the preferred access site, while unfractionated heparin remained favored over bivalirudin because of cost and perceived thrombotic risk.

Explore how this research connects to clinical practice

More peer-reviewed studies in Drug Development.

• Hirudotherapy in Medicine and Dentistry — Jha K et al. (2015)
• Leech therapy: a history — Hyson J (2005)
• Hirudins of the Asian medicinal leech, Hirudinaria manillensis: same same, but different — Lukas P et al. (2019)
• Transcriptomic analysis of the salivary gland of medicinal leech Hirudo nipponia — Lu Z et al. (2018)
• Molecular dynamic and pharmacological studies on protein-engineered hirudin variants of Hirudinaria manillensis and Hirudo medicinalis — Sun Y et al. (2022)
• Cell-free synthesis of the hirudin variant 1 of the blood-sucking leech Hirudo medicinalis — Wüstenhagen D et al. (2020)
• Hirudin variants production by genetic engineered microbial factory — Zhang J, Lan N (2018)
• Hirudin in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia — Lubenow N, Greinacher A (2002)
• Hirudin ameliorates diabetic nephropathy by inhibiting Gsdmd-mediated pyroptosis — Han J et al. (2023)
• Hirudin as alternative anticoagulant--a historical review — Markwardt F (2002)

Browse all ASH-analysed research →