Американское общество гирудотерапии

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Review published in Journal of interventional cardiology (2017)

Последнее обновление: June 18, 2026Рецензент: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisКлинические исследованияРазработка лекарственных препаратовБезопасность и инфекционный контрольФармакология секрета слюнных желёзVillablanca PA et al. · Journal of interventional cardiology, 2017

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI). We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing PAVI. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary efficacy endpoints were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints include major and life-threatening bleed according to VARC and BARC bleeding, blood transfusion, vascular complications, and acute kidney injury. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: Three studies (n = 1690 patients) were included, one randomized trial and two observational studies. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for myocardial infarction (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.20-0.87). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.62-1.52), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.52-2.05), stroke (OR 1.23, 95%CI 0.62-2.46), vascular complications (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.70-1.32), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.53-2.00), blood transfusion (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-1.01), major and life-threatening bleed (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.37-1.49), and BARC bleeding (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.23-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: In patient undergoing aortic valve interventions, no difference was seen between the use of bivalirudin and heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent, except for a significant lower myocardial infarction events when bivalirudin was used. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm current results.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
Indexed MeSH termsAnticoagulantsAortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisBalloon ValvuloplastyHeparinHirudinsHumansPeptide FragmentsRecombinant ProteinsThromboembolismTranscatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Резюме

Bivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI).

Почему это важно для гирудотерапии

This systematic review and meta-analysis (publication types: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis; 3 studies; 1,690 patients—one randomized trial and two observational) compared the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as procedural anticoagulants in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions. Bivalirudin showed significantly lower myocardial infarction rates (OR 0.41) with no significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, blood transfusion, or bleeding endpoints. The authors conclude that bivalirudin and heparin are broadly comparable for PAVI anticoagulation and call for larger randomized trials to confirm results. The abstract does not mention leeches, hirudin, or hirudotherapy; its relevance to ASH's domain is therefore not established by the source text.

Цитирование

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Villablanca PA et al. · Journal of interventional cardiology, 2017

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.