Американское общество гирудотерапии

Bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Meta-analysis published in Perfusion (2022)

Последнее обновление: June 18, 2026Рецензент: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisКлинические исследованияРазработка лекарственных препаратовHuang D et al. · Perfusion, 2022

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bivalirudin has been suggested as an alternative to heparin for anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Nevertheless, there is limited evidence about the benefit of bivalirudin in ECMO patients compared with heparin. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of bivalirudin versus heparin on clinical outcomes in patients receiving ECMO. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception up to 1 April 2022 for cohort studies and randomized controlled trials comparing bivalirudin versus heparin in patients who received ECMO. The primary outcome was short-term death. Secondary outcomes included thrombotic events and bleeding events. RESULTS: We selected 12 retrospective cohort studies with 1232 ECMO patients focusing on bivalirudin anticoagulation (n = 497) versus heparin anticoagulation (n = 735). Two hundred and one of 497 patients (40.4%) in the bivalirudin group versus 350 of 735 patients (47.6%) in the heparin group did not survive to hospital discharge. Compared with the heparin group, bivalirudin anticoagulation did not significantly decrease in-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79-1.13; p = 0.546). Fifty-seven of 374 patients (15.2%) in the bivalirudin versus 99 of 381 patients (26.0%) in the heparin group suffered from thrombotic events. Compared with the heparin group, bivalirudin anticoagulation did not significantly decrease the rate of thrombotic events for patients receiving ECMO (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.35; p = 0.378). However, bivalirudin anticoagulation significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding events compared to the heparin group (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.95; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with heparin anticoagulation, bivalirudin did not decrease the rates of short-term mortality and thrombotic events, but reduced the incidence of bleeding events in patients receiving ECMO.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-Analysis
Indexed MeSH termsHumansAnticoagulantsExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsPeptide FragmentsRecombinant ProteinsRetrospective StudiesThrombosis

Резюме

Meta-analysis of bivalirudin vs UFH for ECMO. Bivalirudin associated with lower circuit thrombosis and bleeding rates with greater anticoagulation stability.

Почему это важно для гирудотерапии

This meta-analysis compared bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, analyzing 12 retrospective cohort studies comprising 1,232 patients (497 bivalirudin, 735 heparin). Bivalirudin did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality or thrombotic events compared to heparin, but it significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding events. The abstract does not discuss leeches, hirudin derivation, or hirudotherapy, so no defensible connection to ASH's domain can be drawn from this article alone. The evidence is limited to retrospective cohort studies of a pharmaceutical anticoagulant in critical care, with no leech involvement.

Цитирование

Bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Huang D et al. · Perfusion, 2022

Связанный клинический контекст

Узнайте, как это исследование связано с клинической практикой

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.