Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials.

Sukhdeep Bhogal, Debabrata Mukherjee, Jayant Bagai, Huu T Truong, Hemang B Panchal, Ghulam Murtaza, Mustafa Zaman, Rajesh Sachdeva, Timir K Paul
{"title":"Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials.","authors":"Sukhdeep Bhogal,&nbsp;Debabrata Mukherjee,&nbsp;Jayant Bagai,&nbsp;Huu T Truong,&nbsp;Hemang B Panchal,&nbsp;Ghulam Murtaza,&nbsp;Mustafa Zaman,&nbsp;Rajesh Sachdeva,&nbsp;Timir K Paul","doi":"10.2174/1871529X19666190626124057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bivalirudin and heparin are the two most commonly used anticoagulants used during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). The results of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in the era of radial access are controversial, questioning the positive impact of bivalirudin on bleeding. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the results of RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin with or without Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (GPI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA statements for reporting systematic reviews. We searched the National Library of Medicine PubMed, Clinicaltrial.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to include clinical studies comparing bivalirudin with heparin in patients undergoing PCI. Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed for the summary.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Several RCTs and meta-analyses have demonstrated the superiority of bivalirudin over heparin plus routine GPI use in terms of preventing bleeding complications but at the expense of increased risk of ischemic complications such as stent thrombosis. The hypothesis of post- PCI bivalirudin infusion to mitigate the risk of acute stent thrombosis has been tested in various RCTs with conflicting results. In comparison, heparin offers the advantage of having a reversible agent, of lower cost and reduced incidence of ischemic complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bivalirudin demonstrates its superiority over heparin plus GPI with better clinical outcomes in terms of less bleeding complications, thus making it as anticoagulation of choice particularly in patients at high risk of bleeding. Further studies are warranted for head to head comparison of bivalirudin to heparin monotherapy to establish an optimal heparin dosing regimen and post-PCI bivalirudin infusion to affirm its beneficial effect in reducing acute stent thrombosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":9543,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular and Hematological Disorders - Drug Targets","volume":"20 1","pages":"3-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2174/1871529X19666190626124057","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular and Hematological Disorders - Drug Targets","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1871529X19666190626124057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Introduction: Bivalirudin and heparin are the two most commonly used anticoagulants used during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). The results of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in the era of radial access are controversial, questioning the positive impact of bivalirudin on bleeding. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the results of RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin with or without Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (GPI).

Methods: This systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA statements for reporting systematic reviews. We searched the National Library of Medicine PubMed, Clinicaltrial.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to include clinical studies comparing bivalirudin with heparin in patients undergoing PCI. Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed for the summary.

Findings: Several RCTs and meta-analyses have demonstrated the superiority of bivalirudin over heparin plus routine GPI use in terms of preventing bleeding complications but at the expense of increased risk of ischemic complications such as stent thrombosis. The hypothesis of post- PCI bivalirudin infusion to mitigate the risk of acute stent thrombosis has been tested in various RCTs with conflicting results. In comparison, heparin offers the advantage of having a reversible agent, of lower cost and reduced incidence of ischemic complications.

Conclusion: Bivalirudin demonstrates its superiority over heparin plus GPI with better clinical outcomes in terms of less bleeding complications, thus making it as anticoagulation of choice particularly in patients at high risk of bleeding. Further studies are warranted for head to head comparison of bivalirudin to heparin monotherapy to establish an optimal heparin dosing regimen and post-PCI bivalirudin infusion to affirm its beneficial effect in reducing acute stent thrombosis.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比伐鲁定与肝素在急性冠脉综合征干预中的比较:随机试验的系统综述。
简介:比伐鲁定和肝素是经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中最常用的两种抗凝剂。在桡动脉通路时代,比较比伐鲁定与肝素单药治疗的随机对照试验(RCTs)结果存在争议,质疑比伐鲁定对出血的积极影响。本系统综述的目的是总结比较比伐鲁定与肝素联合或不联合使用糖蛋白IIb/IIIa抑制剂(GPI)的疗效和安全性的随机对照试验的结果。方法:本系统评价按照系统评价首选报告项目和meta分析PRISMA报告系统评价声明进行。我们检索了国家医学图书馆PubMed、Clinicaltrial.gov和Cochrane中央对照试验注册库,以纳入比伐鲁定与肝素在PCI患者中的临床比较研究。16项研究符合纳入标准,并进行了综述。研究结果:几项随机对照试验和荟萃分析表明,在预防出血并发症方面,比伐鲁定优于肝素加常规GPI,但代价是缺血性并发症(如支架血栓形成)的风险增加。PCI术后输注比伐鲁定可降低急性支架血栓形成风险的假设已在各种随机对照试验中得到验证,但结果相互矛盾。相比之下,肝素具有可逆性、成本较低和减少缺血性并发症发生率的优势。结论:比伐鲁定优于肝素加GPI,出血并发症少,临床效果好,是高危出血患者抗凝治疗的首选。需要进一步研究比伐鲁定与肝素单药治疗的头对头比较,以建立最佳肝素给药方案和pci后比伐鲁定输注,以确认其在减少急性支架血栓形成方面的有益作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiovascular and Hematological Disorders - Drug Targets
Cardiovascular and Hematological Disorders - Drug Targets Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Cardiovascular & Hematological Disorders - Drug Targets aims to cover all the latest and outstanding developments on the medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, molecular biology, genomics and biochemistry of contemporary molecular targets involved in cardiovascular and hematological disorders e.g. disease specific proteins, receptors, enzymes, genes. Each issue of the journal contains a series of timely in-depth reviews written by leaders in the field covering a range of current topics on drug targets involved in cardiovascular and hematological disorders. As the discovery, identification, characterization and validation of novel human drug targets for cardiovascular and hematological drug discovery continues to grow.
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Adherence to Cardiovascular Medicines in Saudi Population: An Observational Study in Patients Attending a Tertiary Care Hospital Two-way Road of Kidney and Hypercalcemia: A Narrative Review. Mechanisms Contributing to Acquired Activated Protein C Resistance in Patients Treated with Thalidomide: A Molecular Dynamics Study. In silico Exploration of Phytochemical based Thiazolidinone- Caffeic Acid- Indole New Chemical Entities for Simultaneous Management of Diabetes and Hypertension- A Fascinating Study. Clinical Dilemma, Bernard Soulier Syndrome versus Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura: A Case Report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1