Американское общество гирудотерапии

Assessing the cardiology community position on transradial intervention and the use of bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: results of an EAPCI survey

Research article published in EuroIntervention (2016)

Последнее обновление: June 18, 2026Рецензент: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportРазработка лекарственных препаратовКлинические исследованияAdamo M et al. · EuroIntervention, 2016

Abstract

AIMS: Our aim was to report on a survey initiated by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) collecting the opinion of the cardiology community on the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), before and after the MATRIX trial presentation at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2015 Scientific Sessions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A web-based survey was distributed to all individuals registered on the EuroIntervention mailing list (n=15,200). A total of 572 and 763 physicians responded to the pre- and post-ACC survey, respectively. The radial approach emerged as the preferable access site for ACS patients undergoing invasive management with roughly every other responder interpreting the evidence for mortality benefit as definitive and calling for a guidelines upgrade to class I. The most frequently preferred anticoagulant in ACS patients remains unfractionated heparin (UFH), due to higher costs and greater perceived thrombotic risks associated with bivalirudin. However, more than a quarter of participants declared the use of bivalirudin would increase after MATRIX. CONCLUSIONS: The MATRIX trial reinforced the evidence for a causal association between bleeding and mortality and triggered consensus on the superiority of the radial versus femoral approach. The belief that bivalirudin mitigates bleeding risk is common, but UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant based on lower costs and thrombotic risks.

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

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAcute Coronary SyndromeAdultAntithrombinsAttitude of Health PersonnelCardiologyFemoral ArteryHirudinsHumansMiddle AgedPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRadial Artery

Резюме

EAPCI survey of 572-763 physicians before and after MATRIX showed radial approach as preferable; UFH still preferred over bivalirudin due to cost and thrombotic concerns.

Почему это важно для гирудотерапии

This article reports a European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) web-based survey distributed to over 15,200 EuroIntervention registrants, with 572 pre- and 763 post-ACC 2015 respondents, assessing physician preferences for invasive management of acute coronary syndrome. Unfractionated heparin remained the most frequently preferred anticoagulant over bivalirudin, largely due to higher costs and perceived thrombotic risks associated with bivalirudin, though more than a quarter of participants expected increased bivalirudin use following the MATRIX trial presentation. The abstract itself contains no mention of leeches, hirudotherapy, or leech-secretome science. CAVEAT: This is a physician opinion survey rather than a clinical trial, and no direct connection to ASH's domain can be established from the abstract alone.

Цитирование

Assessing the cardiology community position on transradial intervention and the use of bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: results of an EAPCI survey.

Adamo M et al. · EuroIntervention, 2016

Связанный клинический контекст

Добавлено в библиотеку ASH: May 27, 2026 · Последнее обновление сайта: June 18, 2026

Этот сайт предоставляет образовательную информацию и не является медицинской консультацией, диагнозом или рекомендацией по лечению. Гирудотерапия сопряжена с клинически значимыми рисками и должна проводиться только квалифицированными клиницистами в рамках институционально утверждённых протоколов. Разрешение FDA 510(k) для медицинских пиявок ограничено определёнными показаниями; обсуждения исследовательского и нелицензионного применения отмечены соответствующим образом. Для индивидуальных медицинских рекомендаций обратитесь к квалифицированному медицинскому специалисту.