Sociedad Americana de Hirudoterapia

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in coronary artery disease patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease: Meta-analysis

Meta-analysis published in Journal of Cardiology (2017)

Última actualización: June 18, 2026Revisado por: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisEnsayos clínicosDesarrollo de fármacosZeng X et al. · Journal of Cardiology, 2017

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have elevated bleeding and ischemic outcomes. We aim to assess the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared to heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with CKD. METHODS: Randomized trials were searched in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases up to January 2017. Among the trials retrieved, efficacy endpoints were defined as mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Safety endpoints were reported as non-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) related major bleeding and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each outcome using a fixed effect model. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 3796 patients were included. In short-term follow up (30 days), bivalirudin significantly reduced non-CABG related major bleeding (p=0.0004) and TIMI major bleeding (p=0.007) compared to heparin plus GPIs. No significant differences were observed in rates of mortality, MI, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and MACEs between the two groups in short- and long-term follow up (6 months to 3 years). In patients with ST elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) with concurrent CKD, the decreased non-CABG related major bleeding (p=0.04) without increasing ischemic events was also observed after short-term follow up. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Bivalirudin is safer than and as effective as heparin plus GPIs in CAD patients with CKD. (2) Impaired renal function does not affect the safety benefits of bivalirudin. (3) Similar efficacy profiles were identified between the two groups after both short- and long-term follow up in the CAD patients with CKD.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsAgedAnticoagulantsCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsHumansKidney Function TestsMaleMiddle Aged

Resumen

Meta-analysis of 5 trials totaling 3796 CAD patients with CKD: bivalirudin significantly reduced non-CABG major bleeding (p=0.0004) and TIMI major bleeding (p=0.007) vs heparin plus GPIs at 30 days, with no difference in ischemic outcomes.

Por qué esto importa para la hirudoterapia

This meta-analysis of five randomized trials (3,796 patients) compared bivalirudin to heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in coronary artery disease patients with chronic kidney disease, finding that bivalirudin significantly reduced major bleeding while showing similar efficacy profiles in short- and long-term follow-up. The abstract does not mention hirudin, leeches, leech saliva, or any molecular relationship between bivalirudin and leech-derived compounds. No defensible connection to hirudotherapy, the leech secretome, or ASH's domain exists from this abstract alone; the study is a cardiologic pharmacotherapy meta-analysis comparing anticoagulant strategies with no leech involvement.

Citación

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in coronary artery disease patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease: Meta-analysis.

Zeng X et al. · Journal of Cardiology, 2017

Contexto clínico relacionado

Añadido a la biblioteca ASH: May 27, 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.