American Society of Hirudotherapy

Use of bivalirudin for anticoagulation in pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)

Research article published in Perfusion (2021)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportDrug DevelopmentKaushik S et al. · Perfusion, 2021

Abstract

This study describes the use of bivalirudin in children on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Pediatric patients receiving bivalirudin were compared to patients receiving heparin as the anticoagulant on ECMO. Data was collected for children under 18 years of age supported by ECMO from January 2016 to December 2019. Data collected included demographics, diagnosis, ECMO indication, type, and duration, indication for bivalirudin use, dose range, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) levels, minor and major bleeding, hemolysis, and mortality. Forty pediatric patients received ECMO; eight received bivalirudin primarily for anticoagulation. The median age was 4 months (IQR 0.5, 92) in the heparin cohort, 0.6 months (IQR 0.0, 80.0) in the primary bivalirudin cohort. The indication for ECMO was respiratory in 5 patients (18%) in the heparin group versus 6 (75%) in the primary bivalirudin group, cardiac in 18 (67%) in heparin versus 1 (12.5%) in primary bivalirudin, and extracorporeal-cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) in 4 (15%) in heparin versus 1 (12.5%) in primary bivalirudin. Bivalirudin was the initial anticoagulant for eight patients (66.6%) while three (25%) were switched due to concern for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and one (8%) for heparin resistance. The median time to achieve therapeutic aPTT was 14.5 hours compared to 12 hours in the heparin group. Sixty-five percent of aPTT values in the bivalirudin and 44% of values in the heparin group were in the therapeutic range in the first 7 days. Patients with primary bivalirudin use had significantly lower dose requirement at 12 (p = 0.003), 36 (p = 0.007), and 48 (p = 0.0002) hours compared to patients with secondary use of bivalirudin. One patient (12.5%) had major bleeding, and two patients (25%) required circuit change in the primary bivalirudin cohort. Bivalirudin may provide stable and successful anticoagulation in children. Further large, multicenter studies are needed to confirm these findings.

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

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsChildHumansAnticoagulantsExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsPeptide FragmentsRecombinant ProteinsRetrospective StudiesInfantChild, Preschool

Summary

Use of bivalirudin for anticoagulation in pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This study describes bivalirudin use in pediatric patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), comparing those receiving bivalirudin to those receiving heparin as the anticoagulant. Among 40 pediatric ECMO patients, eight received bivalirudin as the primary anticoagulant while additional patients were switched to bivalirudin due to concern for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia or heparin resistance; 65% of aPTT values in the bivalirudin group were therapeutic in the first 7 days, with one primary bivalirudin patient experiencing major bleeding. Its relevance to ASH is indirect, as bivalirudin belongs to the hirudin class of anticoagulants conceptually linked to leech-derived thrombin inhibitors. However, no leeches, leech therapy, or leech-derived extracts were involved, and the abstract does not specify whether this was a single-center study; the small number of bivalirudin patients limits generalizability.

Citation

Use of bivalirudin for anticoagulation in pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)

Kaushik S et al. · Perfusion, 2021

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.