Американское общество гирудотерапии

Assessing the external validity of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial

Research article published in Clin Trials (2021)

Последнее обновление: June 18, 2026Рецензент: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportКлинические исследованияБезопасность и инфекционный контрольRylance RT et al. · Clin Trials, 2021

Abstract

AIMS: The VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial was a registry-based randomized trial comparing bivalirudin and heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. It showed no differences in mortality at 30 or 180 days. This study examines how well the trial population results may generalize to the population of all screened patients with fulfilled inclusion criteria in regard to mortality at 30 and 180 days. METHODS: The standardized difference in the mean propensity score for trial inclusion between trial population and the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria was calculated as a metric of similarity. Propensity scores were then used in an inverse-probability weighted Cox regression analysis using the trial population only to estimate the difference in mortality as it would have been had the trial included all screened patients with fulfilled inclusion criteria. Patients who were very likely to be included were weighted down and those who had a very low probability of being in the trial were weighted up. RESULTS: The propensity score difference was 0.61. There were no significant differences in mortality between bivalirudin and heparin in the inverse-probability weighted analysis (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval (0.73, 1.68)) at 30 days or 180 days (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval (0.70, 1.36)). CONCLUSION: The propensity score difference demonstrated that the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria and trial population were not similar. The inverse-probability weighted analysis showed no significant differences in mortality. From this, we conclude that the VALIDATE results may be generalized to the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria.

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

Publication typeJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsAnticoagulantsHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsHumansMyocardial InfarctionPeptide FragmentsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecombinant ProteinsTreatment Outcome

Резюме

Propensity score weighted analysis assessed external validity of VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial; results may be generalized to screened not-enrolled population with no significant differences in mortality.

Почему это важно для гирудотерапии

This study assessed the external validity of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial — which compared bivalirudin versus heparin in acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention — by using propensity score weighting to compare trial participants with screened but not-enrolled patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria. The propensity score difference of 0.61 indicated the two populations were not similar, but the inverse-probability weighted analysis showed no significant mortality differences between bivalirudin and heparin at 30 or 180 days. The abstract contains no mention of leeches, hirudotherapy, or any leech-derived compounds, so no defensible connection to ASH's domain can be inferred. This is a methodological generalizability analysis of a cardiology trial.

Цитирование

Assessing the external validity of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.

Rylance RT et al. · Clin Trials, 2021

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.