American Society of Hirudotherapy

Re-infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Review published in Current opinion in cardiology (2015)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewDrug DevelopmentFrench JK et al. · Current opinion in cardiology, 2015

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Thrombus formation, usually on a ruptured atherosclerotic plaque, is pivotal in the pathogenesis of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This thrombus formation provides the milieu for re-occlusion of the infarct-related artery, the main location of re-infarction post-STEMI. Although rates of re-infarction are lower after reperfusion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than after fibrinolytic therapy, re-infarction remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. RECENT FINDINGS: The predominant cause of re-infarction after primary PCI is stent thrombosis. Two recent trials [A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ambulance Initiation of Bivalirudin vs. Heparin ± Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Patients with STEMI Undergoing Primary PCI (EUROMAX) and Unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (HEAT-PPCI)] have each reported higher rates of stent thrombosis in the first 24 h after primary PCI in patients assigned to receive bivalirudin, which affects the balance of risks and benefit of bivalirudin post-STEMI. Also, in a subanalysis of the Platelet Inhibition And Patient Outcomes trial, ticagrelor reduces re-infarction compared with clopidogrel in patients with STEMI after primary PCI. Other nonpharmacological or mechanical interventions during primary PCI, with the exception of newer-generation drug-eluting stents in the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry, have not affected rates of re-infarction. SUMMARY: Re-infarction remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Re-infarction rates are altered by pharmacological strategy and stent selection in primary PCI. The design of future trials to detect possible treatment differences in relatively low event rates will provide challenges, and may require more novel strategies such as administrative data collection for patient characteristics and key outcomes.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleReview
Indexed MeSH termsCoronary RestenosisGlobal HealthHumansIncidenceMyocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRecurrence

Summary

This review examines re-infarction after primary PCI, where stent thrombosis predominates; the bivalirudin trials EUROMAX and HEAT-PPCI reported more stent thrombosis within 24 hours, and ticagrelor reduced re-infarction versus clopidogrel in a Platelet Inhibition And Patient Outcomes subanalysis.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This review examines the causes of re-infarction following primary percutaneous coronary intervention, identifying stent thrombosis as the predominant cause and discussing how pharmacological strategy and stent selection alter re-infarction rates. It references two trials (EUROMAX and HEAT-PPCI) reporting higher early stent thrombosis rates with bivalirudin, and a subanalysis in which ticagrelor reduced re-infarction versus clopidogrel. 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)

French JK, Burgess S, Chew DP. Re-infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2015;30(4):354-358. doi:10.1097/HCO.0000000000000193. PMID: 26049380

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.