Sociedad Americana de Hirudoterapia

Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bivalirudin Versus Heparin on Myocardial Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Review published in The American journal of cardiology (2016)

Última actualización: June 18, 2026Revisado por: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisEnsayos clínicosDesarrollo de fármacosBarria Perez et al. · The American journal of cardiology, 2016

Abstract

Bivalirudin is an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Previously, we have reported clinical benefit on major bleeding in favor of bivalirudin compared with UFH monotherapy but inconclusive results on mortality. Controversial data have been reported in the last 2 years. We conducted an updated meta-analysis including randomized trials and observational studies, which evaluated ischemic and bleeding outcomes for bivalirudin compared with UFH-only during percutaneous coronary intervention. We included 18 observational studies and 12 randomized trials published from 2003 to 2015. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days including death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization and stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and transfusion. Overall, we found a significant risk reduction with bivalirudin for major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 0.71, p <0.0001) and for transfusion (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95, p = 0.01) and similar risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12, p = 0.80). However, there was a substantial increased risk of stent thrombosis associated with bivalirudin (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.08, p = 0.009). No impact on mortality was found. Meta-regression analyses on major bleeding suggested that bivalirudin was more effective than UFH at doses >60 IU/kg and independent of radial access. In conclusion, compared with UFH monotherapy, bivalirudin remains associated with less bleeding risk but higher stent thrombosis risk. Further study remains required to define its role in current antithrombotic armamentarium.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisReview
Indexed MeSH termsAntithrombinsFibrinolytic AgentsGlobal HealthHeparinHirudinsHumansIncidenceMyocardial IschemiaPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPostoperative HemorrhageRecombinant Proteins

Resumen

Bivalirudin is an alternative to unfractionated heparin (UFH) anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Previously, we have reported clinical benefit on major bleeding in favor of bivalirudin compared with UFH monotherapy but inconclusive results on mortality.

Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia

This meta-analysis of 30 studies (18 observational, 12 randomized trials) compared bivalirudin against unfractionated heparin monotherapy during percutaneous coronary intervention, reporting that bivalirudin was associated with significantly reduced major bleeding and transfusion risk but a substantially increased risk of stent thrombosis, with no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events or mortality. The abstract describes bivalirudin only as an alternative anticoagulant and does not mention hirudin, leeches, hirudotherapy, or any connection to the leech secretome. There is no defensible leech link in this article.

Citación

Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bivalirudin Versus Heparin on Myocardial Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Barria Perez et al. · The American journal of cardiology, 2016

Contexto clínico relacionado

Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: May 28, 2026 · Última actualización del sitio: June 18, 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.