Американское общество гирудотерапии

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in coronary artery disease patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease: Meta-analysis

Meta-analysis published in J Cardiol (2017)

Последнее обновление: June 18, 2026Рецензент: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisРазработка лекарственных препаратовКлинические исследованияZeng X et al. · J Cardiol, 2017

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have elevated bleeding and ischemic outcomes. We aim to assess the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared to heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with CKD. METHODS: Randomized trials were searched in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases up to January 2017. Among the trials retrieved, efficacy endpoints were defined as mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Safety endpoints were reported as non-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) related major bleeding and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each outcome using a fixed effect model. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 3796 patients were included. In short-term follow up (30 days), bivalirudin significantly reduced non-CABG related major bleeding (p=0.0004) and TIMI major bleeding (p=0.007) compared to heparin plus GPIs. No significant differences were observed in rates of mortality, MI, repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and MACEs between the two groups in short- and long-term follow up (6 months to 3 years). In patients with ST elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) with concurrent CKD, the decreased non-CABG related major bleeding (p=0.04) without increasing ischemic events was also observed after short-term follow up. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Bivalirudin is safer than and as effective as heparin plus GPIs in CAD patients with CKD. (2) Impaired renal function does not affect the safety benefits of bivalirudin. (3) Similar efficacy profiles were identified between the two groups after both short- and long-term follow up in the CAD patients with CKD.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal ArticleMeta-AnalysisResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsAgedAnticoagulantsCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHemorrhageHeparinHirudinsHumansKidney Function TestsMaleMiddle Aged

Резюме

Meta-analysis of 5 trials (3,796 CKD patients with CAD); bivalirudin reduced non-CABG major bleeding (p=0.0004) vs heparin plus GPIs without affecting ischemic outcomes.

Почему это важно для гирудотерапии

This meta-analysis of five randomized trials (3,796 patients) assessed the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared to heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in coronary artery disease patients with chronic kidney disease. Bivalirudin significantly reduced non-CABG-related and TIMI major bleeding at short-term follow-up without increasing ischemic events, and impaired renal function did not negate these safety benefits, with similar efficacy profiles between groups at both short- and long-term follow-up. The abstract contains no mention of leeches, hirudin, or leech-derived substances, providing no basis for any connection to hirudotherapy or the leech secretome. This clinical pharmacotherapy meta-analysis has no demonstrable relevance to ASH's domain.

Цитирование

Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in coronary artery disease patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease: Meta-analysis.

Zeng X et al. · J Cardiol, 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.