Use of heparin versus lepirudin flushes to prevent withdrawal occlusion of central venous access devices
Research article published in Pharmacotherapy (2006)
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether lepirudin flushes are more effective than heparinized saline in preventing withdrawal occlusion of central venous access devices. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind clinical trial. SETTING: Research institution-tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Forty-nine adults undergoing bone marrow transplantation for hematologic malignancies or metastatic solid tumors. INTERVENTION: Twenty-four patients received heparin and 25 received lepirudin flushes. The heparin dose was 3 ml of porcine heparin 100 U/ml (300 U) per catheter lumen at least once/day; the lepirudin dose was 3 ml of lepirudin 100 microg/ml (300 microg) per catheter lumen at least once/day. After 3-4 weeks, all 49 patients received the heparin flushes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Efficacy was assessed by the frequency with which the patients were treated with alteplase instillations for withdrawal occlusion of their central venous access devices during the first 4 months of catheterization. Three (12.5%) patients treated with heparin alone and five (20%) treated initially with lepirudin required alteplase instillations for an estimated relative risk with lepirudin versus heparin of 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-13.86, p=0.70). CONCLUSION: Lepirudin was not more effective than heparin, which may have been related to the conservative dose of lepirudin administered. However, higher lepirudin doses are likely to incur an unacceptable risk of systemic anticoagulation.
Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.
Summary
Use of heparin versus lepirudin flushes to prevent withdrawal occlusion of central venous access devices.
Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy
What the study examined: this randomized, double-blind trial in 49 adults undergoing bone marrow transplantation compared lepirudin flushes versus heparinized saline for preventing withdrawal occlusion of central venous access devices, measuring how often alteplase was needed; occlusion requiring alteplase occurred in 3 of 24 heparin patients (12.5%) and 5 of 25 lepirudin patients (20%), a non-significant difference (relative risk 1.6, 95% CI 0.40-13.86, p=0.70). Why it matters for the leech-secretome story: lepirudin is recombinant hirudin, the medicinal leech's direct thrombin inhibitor, so this is a direct human trial of a leech-derived molecule, and the authors note higher lepirudin doses would risk unacceptable systemic anticoagulation. Caveat: this is a single small randomized trial that found lepirudin was not superior to heparin (the authors attribute this partly to the conservative lepirudin dose), so it is preliminary and does not establish a catheter-flush role for the leech-derived agent.
Citation
Use of heparin versus lepirudin flushes to prevent withdrawal occlusion of central venous access devices
Horne MK et al. · Pharmacotherapy, 2006
Added to ASH library: May 27, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026