American Society of Hirudotherapy

Bivalirudin for acute coronary syndromes: premises, promises and doubts

Review published in Thrombosis and haemostasis (2014)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewClinical LiteratureDrug DevelopmentSafety & Infection ControlSalivary PharmacologyCapodanno D et al. · Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2015

Abstract

Bivalirudin is a valuable anticoagulant option in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Advantages over heparin as a parenteral anticoagulant include more predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, shorter half-life, no need for cofactors, some degree of antiplatelet effect, and the ability to inhibit clot-bound thrombin. Clinical evidence supporting the use of bivalirudin over heparin in current ACS guidelines, however, derives mostly from early randomised trials that may no longer reflect current management patterns, now including the use of oral antiplatelet agents more potent than clopidogrel (i.e. prasugrel or ticagrelor) and a broader implementation of strategies to reduce bleeding (i.e. radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention, and use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors only in bailout situations). Defining the fine balance between bivalirudin efficacy and safety over heparins in the context of other antithrombotic treatments remains a challenge in clinical practice, particularly in a fast-evolving scenario, such as ACS, where numerous new trials have been presented in very recent times. Here we provide an up-to-date overview of the evidence on the use of bivalirudin in ACS, with focus on new data, open issues, and future directions.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleReview
Indexed MeSH termsAcute Coronary SyndromeAnticoagulantsCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsHemorrhageHirudinsHumansMyocardial InfarctionPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRecombinant ProteinsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTreatment Outcome

Summary

This review surveys current evidence on bivalirudin in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing PCI, weighing its pharmacologic advantages over heparin against doubts raised by newer trials and evolving antithrombotic management.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This review (publication type: Review) provides an up-to-date overview of the evidence on bivalirudin as a parenteral anticoagulant in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The authors discuss bivalirudin's advantages over heparin—including more predictable pharmacokinetics, shorter half-life, no need for cofactors, some antiplatelet effect, and inhibition of clot-bound thrombin—while noting that supporting evidence comes mostly from earlier trials that may not reflect current management with more potent oral antiplatelet agents and broader bleeding-reduction strategies. The abstract does not mention leeches, hirudin, or hirudotherapy, and the article addresses pharmaceutical anticoagulation in cardiology without any stated link to live leech therapy or the leech secretome. Bivalirudin (formerly Hirulog) is a synthetic peptide anticoagulant designed partly on the C-terminal sequence of hirudin, the anticoagulant of the medicinal leech (Maraganore et al., 1990); this paper studies the drug, not leech therapy.

Citation

Reference (Vancouver style)

Capodanno D, De Caterina R. Bivalirudin for acute coronary syndromes: premises, promises and doubts. Thromb Haemost. 2015;113(4):698-707. doi:10.1160/TH14-09-0765. PMID: 25519159

Bibliographic details (authors, volume, pages, DOI) are taken from the PubMed record.

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.