Американское общество гирудотерапии

Choice of access site and type of anticoagulant in acute coronary syndromes with advanced Killip class or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Randomized controlled trial published in Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) (2020)

Последнее обновление: June 18, 2026Рецензент: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialРазработка лекарственных препаратовКлинические исследованияGargiulo G et al. · Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed), 2020

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Patients who are vulnerable to hemodynamic or electrical disorders (VP) are often excluded from clinical trials and data on the optimal access-site or antithrombotic treatment are limited. We assessed outcomes of transradial vs transfemoral access and bivalirudin vs unfractionated heparin (UFH) in VP with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. METHODS: The MATRIX trial randomized 8404 patients to radial or femoral access and 7213 patients to bivalirudin or UFH. Among them, 934 (11.1%) were deemed VP due to advanced Killip class (n = 808), cardiac arrest (n = 168), or both (n = 42). The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACE: death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (NACE: MACE or major bleeding). RESULTS: MACE and NACE were similarly reduced with radial vs femoral access in VP and non-VP. Transradial access was also associated with consistent relative benefits in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding with greater absolute benefits in VP. The effects of bivalirudin vs UFH on MACE and NACE were consistent in VP and non-VP. Bivalirudin was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in VP but not in non-VP, with borderline interaction testing. Bivalirudin reduced bleeding in both VP and non-VP with a larger absolute benefit in VP. CONCLUSIONS: In acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing invasive management, the effects of randomized treatments were consistent in VP and non-VP, but absolute risk reduction with radial access and bivalirudin were greater in VP, with a 5- to 10-fold lower number needed to treat for benefits. Trial registry number: NCT01433627.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled Trial
Indexed MeSH termsAcute Coronary SyndromeAnticoagulantsAntithrombinsHeparinHirudinsHumansOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRecombinant ProteinsTreatment Outcome

Резюме

Patients who are vulnerable to hemodynamic or electrical disorders (VP) are often excluded from clinical trials and data on the optimal access-site or antithrombotic treatment are limited.

Почему это важно для гирудотерапии

This analysis from the MATRIX trial examined outcomes of transradial versus transfemoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in 934 acute coronary syndrome patients with advanced Killip class or cardiac arrest (designated 'vulnerable patients') among 8,404 total enrollees. Bivalirudin was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in vulnerable patients and reduced bleeding in both vulnerable and non-vulnerable groups, with larger absolute benefits in vulnerable patients and a 5- to 10-fold lower number needed to treat. The abstract provides no information about leeches, hirudotherapy, or any leech-derived compounds, and no defensible connection to ASH's domain can be drawn from the abstract alone. This is solely a cardiology trial of access-site and anticoagulant strategies.

Цитирование

Choice of access site and type of anticoagulant in acute coronary syndromes with advanced Killip class or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Gargiulo G et al. · Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed), 2020

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.