American Society of Hirudotherapy

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Review published in Journal of interventional cardiology (2017)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisClinical TrialsDrug DevelopmentSafety & Infection ControlSalivary PharmacologyVillablanca PA et al. · Journal of interventional cardiology, 2017

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI). We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing PAVI. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary efficacy endpoints were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints include major and life-threatening bleed according to VARC and BARC bleeding, blood transfusion, vascular complications, and acute kidney injury. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: Three studies (n = 1690 patients) were included, one randomized trial and two observational studies. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for myocardial infarction (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.20-0.87). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.62-1.52), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.52-2.05), stroke (OR 1.23, 95%CI 0.62-2.46), vascular complications (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.70-1.32), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.53-2.00), blood transfusion (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-1.01), major and life-threatening bleed (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.37-1.49), and BARC bleeding (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.23-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: In patient undergoing aortic valve interventions, no difference was seen between the use of bivalirudin and heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent, except for a significant lower myocardial infarction events when bivalirudin was used. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm current results.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
Indexed MeSH termsAnticoagulantsAortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisBalloon ValvuloplastyHeparinHirudinsHumansPeptide FragmentsRecombinant ProteinsThromboembolismTranscatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Summary

Bivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI).

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This systematic review and meta-analysis (publication types: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis; 3 studies; 1,690 patients—one randomized trial and two observational) compared the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as procedural anticoagulants in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions. Bivalirudin showed significantly lower myocardial infarction rates (OR 0.41) with no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, blood transfusion, or bleeding endpoints. The authors conclude that bivalirudin and heparin are broadly comparable for PAVI anticoagulation and call for larger randomized trials to confirm results. The abstract does not mention leeches, hirudin, or hirudotherapy; its relevance to ASH's domain is therefore not established by the source text.

Citation

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Villablanca PA et al. · Journal of interventional cardiology, 2017

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.