American Society of Hirudotherapy

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

Research article published in EuroIntervention (2016)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportDrug DevelopmentClinical TrialsAdamo M et al. · EuroIntervention, 2016

Abstract

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.

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAcute Coronary SyndromeAdultAntithrombinsAttitude of Health PersonnelCardiologyFemoral ArteryHirudinsHumansMiddle AgedPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRadial Artery

Summary

EAPCI survey of 572-763 physicians before and after MATRIX showed radial approach as preferable; UFH still preferred over bivalirudin due to cost and thrombotic concerns.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This article reports a European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) web-based survey distributed to over 15,200 EuroIntervention registrants, with 572 pre- and 763 post-ACC 2015 respondents, assessing physician preferences for invasive management of acute coronary syndrome. Unfractionated heparin remained the most frequently preferred anticoagulant over bivalirudin, largely due to higher costs and perceived thrombotic risks associated with bivalirudin, though more than a quarter of participants expected increased bivalirudin use following the MATRIX trial presentation. The abstract itself contains no mention of leeches, hirudotherapy, or leech-secretome science. CAVEAT: This is a physician opinion survey rather than a clinical trial, and no direct connection to ASH's domain can be established from the abstract alone.

Citation

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.

Adamo M et al. · EuroIntervention, 2016

Added to ASH library: May 27, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.