Sociedad Americana de Hirudoterapia

A systematic review and meta-analysis of bivalirudin application in peripheral endovascular procedures

Meta-analysis published in Journal of vascular surgery (2019)

Última actualización: 18 de junio de 2026Revisado por: ASH Editorial Board
Artículo de investigación — revisión de evidenciaReferencia del artículo
Evidence: Meta-analysisDesarrollo de fármacosHu Y et al. · Journal of vascular surgery, 2019

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin (BIV) was shown to be superior to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in percutaneous coronary interventions for reducing procedural blood loss. The aim of this study was to compare outcome profiles of BIV and UFH in peripheral endovascular procedures (PEPs) by synthesizing the currently available data. METHODS: Following the PRISMA statement, we conducted a comprehensive literature search using Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL Google scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov. We recruited randomized, controlled trials and well-conducted observational studies that compared UFH and BIV in PEPs requiring anticoagulation, excluding endovascular cardiac procedures and coronary interventions. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to compare the outcome profiles of these two agents. RESULTS: Thirteen articles containing 14 studies involving a total of 21,057 patients were enrolled. Of these, 2 were randomized controlled trials, 2 were prospective cohort studies, and 10 were retrospective studies. There were no significant differences between BIV and UFH in terms of procedural success rates, major and minor perioperative bleeding, transfusion, perioperative transient ischemic attack, or hemorrhagic strokes. However, compared with UFH, BIV had significantly lower odds ratios (OR) of perioperative mortality (OR, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.86), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83), net adverse clinical events (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.88), perioperative myocardial infarction (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98), major vascular complications (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), and minor vascular complications (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with UFH, PEPs using BIV had comparable procedural success rates and odds of perioperative transient ischemic attack and hemorrhagic stroke. However, procedures with BIV had a lower but nonsignificant odds of perioperative bleeding and transfusion. Depending on the procedures conducted, the patients who received BIV will have reduced or comparable odds of perioperative mortality, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiovascular events, net adverse clinical events, and major and minor vascular complications. Therefore, BIV may be chosen solely as an alternative procedural anticoagulant to UFH for PEPs.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSystematic Review
Indexed MeSH termsAnticoagulantsAntithrombinsEndovascular ProceduresHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsHumansIschemic Attack, TransientMyocardial InfarctionObservational Studies as TopicPatient SafetyPeptide Fragments

Resumen

The direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin (BIV) was shown to be superior to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in percutaneous coronary interventions for reducing procedural blood loss.

Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia

Esta revisión sistemática y metanálisis comparó la bivalirudina con la heparina no fraccionada en procedimientos endovasculares periféricos a lo largo de 14 estudios y 21.057 pacientes, encontrando resultados comparables en éxito del procedimiento, hemorragia, transfusión, ataque isquémico transitorio y accidente cerebrovascular hemorrágico, pero menores probabilidades de mortalidad perioperatoria, infarto de miocardio, eventos cardiovasculares adversos mayores, eventos clínicos adversos netos y complicaciones vasculares mayores y menores con bivalirudina. El resumen no menciona hirudina, sanguijuelas ni ninguna conexión con la hirudoterapia o la farmacología derivada de sanguijuelas. Por lo tanto, a partir únicamente del resumen, no puede establecerse una conexión defendible con el dominio de ASH, y cualquier relevancia de ese tipo descansaría sobre conocimiento externo no presente en el artículo.

Citación

A systematic review and meta-analysis of bivalirudin application in peripheral endovascular procedures

Hu Y et al. · Journal of vascular surgery, 2019

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.