Sociedad Americana de Hirudoterapia

Alternative anticoagulants in heparin-sensitive patients undergoing carotid artery interventions: A scoping review

Scoping review published in J Vasc Surg (2026)

Última actualización: 18 de junio de 2026Revisado por: ASH Editorial Board
Artículo de investigación — revisión de evidenciaReferencia del artículo
Evidence: Narrative reviewDesarrollo de fármacosSeguridad y control de infeccionesDmitriev AP et al. · Journal of vascular surgery, 2026

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Systemic unfractionated heparin (UFH) is routinely administered as procedural anticoagulation during carotid artery procedures. However, types I, II, and IV hypersensitivity to heparin can occur amongst patients with carotid artery disease who require carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS). Although rapid-acting nonheparin alternatives are available, their use for procedural anticoagulation in patients with suspected heparin hypersensitivity undergoing carotid intervention has not been thoroughly studied. We sought to evaluate the safety of nonheparin anticoagulant use in carotid artery interventions. METHODS: A PRISMA-structured scoping review was done to evaluate the outcomes of carotid interventions performed with nonheparin intraoperative anticoagulation. To do so, primary literature published between 1993 and 2025 was obtained using structured searches of PubMed, OVID Medline, and OVID Embase. Studies were included if they assessed major adverse cardiovascular events and excessive bleeding associated with nonheparin anticoagulation in CEA and CAS and were excluded if they did not have a primary focus on surgical outcomes or were not original research. Data on study characteristics, patient population, intervention, and clinical outcomes were extracted and summarized using a narrative synthesis to identify trends in the incidence and type of complication for a given alternative anticoagulant relative to UFH. RESULTS: A total of 90 deduplicated citations were identified, of which 21 met the criteria for inclusion. Eleven studies evaluated bivalirudin, six evaluated argatroban, and four evaluated low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). The bivalirudin literature included three case reports describing its use in CEA, as well as two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies on its use in CAS. Bivalirudin was found to be safe for carotid procedures and was associated with less bleeding compared with UFH. Argatroban use was described in five case reports of CEA and one of CAS, none of which reported adverse events. Finally, two prospective randomized controlled trials, a retrospective cohort study, and a case series compared different LMWHs with UFH in CEA and found no significant difference in thrombotic or hemorrhagic events between the two treatment groups, but did note a lower risk of embolism with LMWH. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected UFH hypersensitivity requiring carotid intervention, bivalirudin appears to be a safe alternative, while argatroban and LMWH may represent acceptable options based on limited available evidence. Bivalirudin, in particular, is associated with less perioperative bleeding and no increase in periprocedural complications.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleScoping ReviewReview
Indexed MeSH termsHumansAnticoagulantsHeparinEndarterectomy, CarotidCarotid Artery DiseasesTreatment OutcomeArginineStentsDrug HypersensitivityHemorrhageRisk FactorsHirudins

Resumen

Scoping review of non-heparin anticoagulant strategies (bivalirudin, argatroban, lepirudin-derived agents) in patients with heparin allergy or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia undergoing carotid endarterectomy or stenting.

Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia

Esta revisión de alcance evaluó 21 estudios (1993–2025) sobre la seguridad de anticoagulantes no heparínicos para procedimientos —bivalirudina, argatrobán y heparina de bajo peso molecular (HBPM)— en pacientes con sospecha de hipersensibilidad a la heparina sometidos a endarterectomía carotídea o colocación de stent. La bivalirudina resultó segura con menor sangrado perioperatorio en comparación con la heparina no fraccionada, mientras que el argatrobán y la HBPM se consideraron aceptables según la evidencia limitada. El resumen no menciona hirudina, sanguijuelas ni terapia con sanguijuelas en ningún momento, y no puede establecerse ninguna conexión defendible con la hirudoterapia o el secretoma de la sanguijuela a partir del texto propio de este artículo. Por lo tanto, el estudio no es relevante para el ámbito de la ASH más allá del tema general de las alternativas anticoagulantes.

Citación

Alternative anticoagulants in heparin-sensitive patients undergoing carotid artery interventions: A scoping review.

Dmitriev AP et al. · Journal of vascular surgery, 2026

Contexto clínico relacionado

Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: May 27, 2026 · Última actualización del sitio: 18 de junio de 2026

Este sitio web proporciona información educativa y no constituye consejo médico, diagnóstico ni recomendaciones de tratamiento. La terapia con sanguijuelas medicinales conlleva riesgos clínicamente significativos y debe ser realizada únicamente por profesionales calificados bajo protocolos aprobados institucionalmente. La autorización 510(k) de la FDA para sanguijuelas medicinales se limita a indicaciones específicas; las discusiones sobre uso investigativo y fuera de indicación se señalan correspondientemente. Para orientación médica específica, consulte a un profesional de salud calificado.