American Society of Hirudotherapy

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thromboembolic complications: meta-analysis of 2 prospective trials to assess the value of parenteral treatment with lepirudin and its therapeutic aPTT range.

Research article published in Blood (2000)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisDrug DevelopmentGreinacher et al. · Blood, 2000

Abstract

This meta-analysis focuses on 2 prospective studies in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and thromboembolic complication (TEC) who were treated with lepirudin (n = 113). Data were compared with those of a historical control group (n = 91). The primary endpoint (combined incidence of death, new TEC, and limb amputation) occurred in 25 lepirudin-treated patients (22.1%; 95% CI, 14.5%-29.8%): 11 died (9.7%; 95% CI, 4.9%-16.8%), 7 underwent limb amputation (6.2%; 95% CI, 2.5%-12.3%), and 12 experienced new TEC (10.6%; 95% CI, 5.8%-18.3%). The risk was highest in the period between diagnosis of HIT and the start of lepirudin therapy (combined event rate per patient day 6.1%). It markedly decreased to 1.3% during lepirudin treatment and to 0.7% in the posttreatment period. From the start of lepirudin therapy to the end of follow-up, lepirudin-treated patients had consistently lower incidences of the combined endpoint than the historical control group (P =.004, log-rank test), primarily because of a reduced risk for new TEC (P =. 005). Thrombin-antithrombin levels in the pretreatment period (median, 43.9 microg/L) decreased after the initiation of lepirudin (at 24 hours +/- 6 hours; median, 9.18 microg/L.) During treatment with lepirudin, aPTT ratios of 1.5 to 2.5 produced optimal clinical efficacy with a moderate risk for bleeding, aPTT ratios lower than 1. 5 were subtherapeutic, and aPTT levels greater than 2.5 were associated with high bleeding risk. Bleeding events requiring transfusion were significantly more frequent in patients taking lepirudin than in historical control patients (P =.02). In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides further evidence that lepirudin is an effective and acceptably safe treatment for patients with HIT.

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 termsAgedAnticoagulantsClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHeparinHirudinsHumansInfusions, IntravenousMaleMiddle AgedRecombinant ProteinsThrombocytopenia

Summary

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thromboembolic complications: meta-analysis of 2 prospective trials to assess the value of parenteral treatment with lepirudin and its therapeutic aPTT range.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This meta-analysis pooled data from two prospective studies of lepirudin (recombinant hirudin) in 113 patients with HIT and thromboembolic complications, compared with 91 historical controls. The combined endpoint of death, new thromboembolic complications, or limb amputation occurred in 22.1% of lepirudin patients, with event rates dropping from 6.1% per patient-day before treatment to 1.3% during treatment; optimal efficacy was achieved at aPTT ratios of 1.5–2.5, though bleeding requiring transfusion was significantly more frequent than in controls. This meta-analysis strengthens the evidence base for the therapeutic utility of a leech-derived anticoagulant, directly relevant to ASH's domain. However, the analysis relies on historical controls and concerns pharmaceutical recombinant hirudin rather than live leech therapy.

Citation

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with thromboembolic complications: meta-analysis of 2 prospective trials to assess the value of parenteral treatment with lepirudin and its therapeutic aPTT range.

Greinacher et al. · Blood, 2000

Added to ASH library: May 28, 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.