American Society of Hirudotherapy

Pharmacologic prevention of acute ischemic complications of coronary angioplasty

Review published in Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis (1997)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewDrug DevelopmentWheeldon N · Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis, 1997

Abstract

The risk of acute coronary occlusion following percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) has remained high despite the traditional use of heparin and aspirin. Interest has focused on newer strategies for preventing intracoronary thrombus formation, which is an important mechanism of abrupt vessel closure. Pretreatment with thrombolytic agents has failed vigorous testing in double-blind trials. Retrospective and observational studies have indicated that pretreatment with intravenous heparin is of benefit in patients with unstable symptoms, but prolonged infusion after angioplasty increases bleeding complications without improving outcomes. Subcutaneous heparin may be safer, but has not proved more effective. Oral dipyridamole has shown no advantage over aspirin, although there is evidence to suggest a benefit when given intravenously. Direct thrombin inhibitors (such as hirudin and hirulog) are associated with fewer early complications compared with heparin, but have yielded no apparent long-term benefit. The use of the antiplatelet drug ticlopidine is increasing, although long-term data are lacking. A great deal of recent interest has focused on newer antiplatelet agents, particularly the glycoprotein IIB/IIIa receptor inhibitor c7E3 Fab. In a large-scale trial, c7E3 significantly reduced the 30-day rate of mortality and cardiac events, and these benefits were maintained at 6 mo. This drug, unlike other antiplatelet agents, inhibits the final common pathway of platelet aggregation, which influences not only acute closure but has lasting effects for at least 6 mo. This may reflect a reduction in restenosis, although this remains to be proven. This article gives a brief overview of the pharmacologic agents available for the prophylaxis and treatment of acute ischemic complications of PTCA.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleReview
Indexed MeSH termsAbciximabAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryAntibodies, MonoclonalAspirinConstriction, PathologicCoronary DiseaseFibrinolytic AgentsHeparinHumansImmunoglobulin Fab FragmentsPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsThrombosis

Summary

The risk of acute coronary occlusion following percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) has remained high despite the traditional use of heparin and aspirin.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This review surveys pharmacologic strategies for preventing acute ischemic complications of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), covering aspirin, heparin, thrombolytics, ticlopidine, and newer antiplatelet agents. Direct thrombin inhibitors hirudin and hirulog are noted as showing fewer early complications compared with heparin, though the abstract states they yielded "no apparent long-term benefit." The review focuses primarily on the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor c7E3 Fab as the most promising advance. This article is of indirect relevance to ASH's domain as it contextualizes hirudin within the broader antithrombotic pharmacotherapy landscape for interventional cardiology. The main caveat is that this is a review with no original data, and hirudin is mentioned only briefly among multiple agents; the abstract provides no specific trial results, study designs, or leech-related context for hirudin.

Citation

Pharmacologic prevention of acute ischemic complications of coronary angioplasty

Wheeldon N · Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis, 1997

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.