American Society of Hirudotherapy

Use of direct thrombin inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome

Meta-analysis published in Clin Ther (2000)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisDrug DevelopmentSalivary PharmacologyNemergut C et al. · Clinical therapeutics, 2000

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the rationale for using direct thrombin inhibitors in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). BACKGROUND: With traditional management of ACS using aspirin and unfractionated heparin (UH), refractory angina and new myocardial infarction (MI) continue to develop. Growing understanding of the pathophysiology of ACS has led to the search for more effective therapies directed toward preventing formation of fibrin- and platelet-rich thrombi in the coronary arteries. Current pharmacologic approaches include use of direct thrombin inhibitors (lepirudin, desirudin, and bivalirudin). METHODS: We reviewed all published clinical trials abstracted in MEDLINE from 1966 to April 2000, excluding pilot studies enrolling <500 patients. RESULTS: Use of lepirudin at medium doses (0.4-mg/kg bolus + 0.15 mg/kg/h) resulted in lower rates of death, new MI, and refractory angina at 7 days compared with UH (3.0% vs 6.5%; P = 0.047), although the incidence of minor bleeding was increased (7.6% vs 4.5%; P < 0.05). Bivalirudin was as effective as UH in preventing complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (11.4% vs 12.2%; NS) and carried a lower bleeding risk (7.8% vs 19.2%; NS); however, its use in the management of ACS has not been studied. Desirudin used at low doses (0.1-mg/kg bolus + 0.1 mg/kg/h) in large-scale clinical trials in patients with acute MI treated with alteplase or streptokinase appeared to be at least as effective as UH (8.9% vs 9.8% at 30 days; NS). However, its therapeutic index was narrow, since it was associated with significantly more moderate bleeding (8.8% vs 7.7%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All clinical trials to date have studied relatively short-term use (3-5 days) of direct thrombin inhibitors, and long-term benefits on morbidity and mortality have not been demonstrated. Until further data are available, direct thrombin inhibitors should be restricted to use as a possible alternative in patients who require anticoagulant therapy but experience UH-induced thrombocytopenia.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-Analysis
Indexed MeSH termsAntithrombinsClinical Trials as TopicCoronary DiseaseHumans

Summary

Meta-analysis-style review of clinical trials of leech-derived DTIs (lepirudin, desirudin, bivalirudin) in acute coronary syndrome, comparing efficacy and bleeding risk against unfractionated heparin.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This meta-analysis reviewed published clinical trials (MEDLINE 1966–April 2000, excluding pilot studies with fewer than 500 patients) examining direct thrombin inhibitors (lepirudin, desirudin, bivalirudin) in acute coronary syndrome management. Medium-dose lepirudin showed lower rates of death, new MI, and refractory angina at 7 days versus unfractionated heparin (3.0% vs 6.5%, P=0.047) but more minor bleeding; bivalirudin was comparable to heparin post-PCI with lower bleeding risk; low-dose desirudin was at least as effective as heparin but with more moderate bleeding. For ASH's domain, the abstract does not mention leeches, hirudin, or any hirudotherapy connection, so a direct link to ASH's domain cannot be established from this text. Caveat: this addresses pharmaceutical antithrombotic agents in coronary disease, not leech therapy; trials were short-term (3–5 days) and long-term benefit was unproven.

Citation

Use of direct thrombin inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome.

Nemergut C et al. · Clinical therapeutics, 2000

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.