American Society of Hirudotherapy

Bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Meta-analysis published in Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy (2024)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisClinical TrialsDrug DevelopmentSun B et al. · Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2024

Abstract

AIMS: The present meta-analysis focused on investigating whether bivalirudin plus post-PCI infusion was safer and more effective than heparin monotherapy in patients who developed ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systemically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin and heparin for treating STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI. The Cochrane quality assessment tool was used to assess the quality of the enrolled studies. The primary and secondary outcomes included net adverse clinical events (NACEs, comprising all-cause death or major bleeding), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs, comprising all-cause death, stroke, MI, and TVR), in-stent thrombosis (IST), and bleeding of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, and 5. RESULTS: The four RCTs, comprising 10,695 events, included 5350 patients who received bivalirudin combined with post-PCI infusion and 5345 patients who received heparin monotherapy. Compared with those in the heparin group, the number of NACEs (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96, P = 0.009), MACEs (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = 0.04), and ISTs (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.91, P < 0.0001) in the bivalirudin group was significantly lower. There were no significant differences in all-cause death, cardiac death, stroke, MI, TVR, or BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, bivalirudin plus post-PCI infusion significantly reduced the incidence of NACEs, MACEs, and ISTs compared with heparin monotherapy, without increasing the risk of MI or TVR. Bivalirudin may also contribute to a potential reduction in stroke, death, and BARC type 2, 3, and 5 bleeding rates.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsHumansHirudinsPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionHeparinRecombinant ProteinsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionAntithrombinsHemorrhageAnticoagulantsTreatment Outcome

Summary

Meta-analysis pooling STEMI primary-PCI trials of bivalirudin vs heparin monotherapy. Bivalirudin reduces major bleeding without increased ischemic events.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials compared bivalirudin plus post-PCI infusion against heparin monotherapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Bivalirudin significantly reduced net adverse clinical events (RR 0.84, P=0.009), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.82, P=0.04), and in-stent thrombosis (RR 0.66, P<0.0001) compared to heparin, with no significant differences in all-cause death, cardiac death, stroke, MI, TVR, or BARC type 2, 3, and 5 bleeding. For ASH's domain, this study has no defensible connection to hirudotherapy or the leech secretome—the abstract discusses bivalirudin versus heparin without any mention of leeches, hirudin, or drug derivation. Any link would require external knowledge not present in this abstract.

Citation

Bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Sun B et al. · Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2024

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.