Bivalirudin versus heparin for percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Meta-analysis published in Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions (2014)
Abstract
AIMS: Given controversy over anticoagulation regimens for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare bivalirudin versus heparin. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medline/Pubmed and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for all RCTs comparing bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) use versus heparin with provisional or routine GPI use for PCI. Pooled estimates of 30day outcomes, presented as risk ratios (RR) [95% confidence intervals], were generated with random-effect models. Our analysis included 14 studies with 30,446 patients that were randomized to bivalirudin with provisional GPI use (n=14,869) versus heparin with provisional (n=6451) or routine GPI use (n=9126). There was no significant difference between anticoagulation with bivalirudin compared with heparin for death (RR 0.95 [0.78-1.14]) or myocardial infarction (RR 1.10 [0.97-1.25]). Early stent thrombosis was significantly greater with bivalirudin compared with heparin (RR 1.61 [1.18-2.20], p=0.003), especially in patients undergoing primary PCI (2.15 [1.15-4.03], p=0.02). However, bivalirudin reduced the risk of major bleeding (RR 0.59 [0.51-0.70], p<0.0001) and TIMI major bleeding (RR 0.59 [0.48-0.72], p<0.0001) compared with heparin. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that bleeding risk with use of heparin significantly increases with increasing GPI use (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs with 30,446 patients demonstrated that bivalirudin is associated with higher risk of stent thrombosis but lower risk of major bleeding compared with heparin.
Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.
Resumen
Given controversy over anticoagulation regimens for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare bivalirudin versus heparin.
Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia
This meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (30,446 patients) compared bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use versus heparin with provisional or routine GPI use for percutaneous coronary intervention. Pooled 30-day outcomes showed no significant difference in death or myocardial infarction between groups, but bivalirudin was associated with higher early stent thrombosis (especially in primary PCI) and lower major and TIMI major bleeding compared with heparin. The abstract itself makes no mention of hirudin, leeches, or any leech-derived component, and does not characterize bivalirudin's relationship to hirudin. Accordingly, no defensible connection to hirudotherapy, the leech secretome, or ASH's domain can be drawn from this source alone.
Citación
Bivalirudin versus heparin for percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Lipinski MJ et al. · Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions, 2014
Contexto clínico relacionado
Explore cómo esta investigación se conecta con la práctica clínica
Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: May 27, 2026 · Última actualización del sitio: June 18, 2026