Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

AIMS: The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains controversial despite recent evidence from large randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin as compared to heparin in patients with ACS undergoing PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were searched for RCTs. Primary endpoint was MACE consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke within 30 days. Secondary endpoints were components of the primary endpoint and stent thrombosis. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. We identified 12 RCTs comprising 33,844 patients. Between bivalirudin and heparin, there were no significant differences for MACE (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.96-1.17; p = 0.24), death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Similar results were seen following stratification by use of glycoprotein inhibitors (GPI). Major bleeding trended to be less frequent in patients treated with bivalirudin. However, no safety benefit for bivalirudin was seen when use of GPI was balanced between groups (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.67-1.16; p = 0.35; p for heterogeneity < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with heparin, bivalirudin was associated with a similar incidence of ischemic events following PCI for ACS. An association of bivalirudin with decreased bleeding was not seen with balanced use of GPI.

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

The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains controversial despite recent evidence from large randomized-controlled trials (RCTs).

Leech-derived molecules this paper discusses, each with a full profile in the ASH compound registry:

Explore how this research connects to clinical practice

More peer-reviewed studies in Clinical Trials.

• Leech Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis — The Landmark RCT — Michalsen et al. (2003)
• Leech-Assisted Flap Salvage — Systematic Review of 277 Cases — Whitaker et al. (2012)
• Effects of hirudotherapy on liver functions, lipid profile, and insulin sensitivity in rats with metabolic syndrome — Bilden A et al. (2026)
• Efficacy and Safety of Hirudotherapy for Improving Sperm Quality Parameters in Male Infertility: A Randomized Controlled Trial — Abtahi-Forooshani M et al. (2026)
• Reverse Sural Flap Venous Congestion Successfully Managed With Enoxaparin in a Male Patient With a Traumatic Foot Crush Injury: A Case Report — Velasco-Bustamante J et al. (2026)
• Investigation of the therapeutic effects of medicinal leech treatment on lower extremity ischemia-reperfusion injury — Ünal K et al. (2026)
• Efficacy of Medicinal Leech Therapy in Diverse Clinical Applications: A Comprehensive Study from Azerbaijan — Farzali S et al. (2025)
• HIRUDOTHERAPY IN RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY: CASE-REPORTS AND REVIEW — Heinz P et al. (2020)
• Hirudotherapy Efficacy and Complications in the Management of Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review — Foppiani J et al. (2024)
• Hirudotherapy in Wound Healing — Nair H et al. (2022)

Browse all ASH-analysed research →