比伐鲁定和肝素治疗急性冠脉综合征的疗效和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 5.7 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1186/s13643-025-02782-7
You Zhai, Hongcai Shang, Yan Li, Nan Zhang, Jisi Zhang, Shangwen Wu
{"title":"比伐鲁定和肝素治疗急性冠脉综合征的疗效和安全性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"You Zhai, Hongcai Shang, Yan Li, Nan Zhang, Jisi Zhang, Shangwen Wu","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02782-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at high risk of thrombosis. However, bleeding-related complications during antithrombotic therapy remain a major barrier to effective treatment and can often lead to adverse outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with ACS after PCI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ACS after PCI were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP database until August 2024. The outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, short-term bleeding, revascularization, and retransfusion. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 70,199 patients from 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed in this review. There were no significant differences between the bivalirudin and heparin groups in terms of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis within 30 days, or subacute stent thrombosis. Specifically, the incidence of short-term bleeding (P = 0.001) and retransfusion (P = 0.001) was significantly lower in the bivalirudin group compared to the heparin group. Conversely, the incidence of acute stent thrombosis (P < 0.0001) and revascularization (P = 0.009) was significantly higher in the bivalirudin group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with heparin, bivalirudin has definite anticoagulant effect in patients with acute myocardial infarction after PCI, and the risk of bleeding and the incidence of retransfusion were lower in the bivalirudin group. This review helps doctors in PCI management choose bivalirudin or heparin more precisely based on patients' conditions for better treatment and fewer adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"39"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11808951/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"You Zhai, Hongcai Shang, Yan Li, Nan Zhang, Jisi Zhang, Shangwen Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-025-02782-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at high risk of thrombosis. However, bleeding-related complications during antithrombotic therapy remain a major barrier to effective treatment and can often lead to adverse outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with ACS after PCI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ACS after PCI were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP database until August 2024. The outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, short-term bleeding, revascularization, and retransfusion. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 70,199 patients from 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed in this review. There were no significant differences between the bivalirudin and heparin groups in terms of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis within 30 days, or subacute stent thrombosis. Specifically, the incidence of short-term bleeding (P = 0.001) and retransfusion (P = 0.001) was significantly lower in the bivalirudin group compared to the heparin group. Conversely, the incidence of acute stent thrombosis (P < 0.0001) and revascularization (P = 0.009) was significantly higher in the bivalirudin group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with heparin, bivalirudin has definite anticoagulant effect in patients with acute myocardial infarction after PCI, and the risk of bleeding and the incidence of retransfusion were lower in the bivalirudin group. This review helps doctors in PCI management choose bivalirudin or heparin more precisely based on patients' conditions for better treatment and fewer adverse events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11808951/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02782-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02782-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是血栓形成的高危人群。然而,在抗血栓治疗期间出血相关并发症仍然是有效治疗的主要障碍,并经常导致不良后果。本荟萃分析旨在确定比伐鲁定和肝素在PCI术后ACS患者中的疗效和安全性。方法:截至2024年8月,从PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、CBM、中国知网(CNKI)、万方网(WanFang)和VIP数据库中检索比伐鲁定与肝素对ACS PCI术后患者疗效和安全性的随机对照试验(RCTs)。结果包括全因死亡率、主要不良心血管事件(mace)、复发性心肌梗死发生率、支架血栓形成、短期出血、血运重建和再输血。采用RevMan 5.3和Stata 12.0软件进行meta分析。使用Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具对纳入的研究进行偏倚风险评估。结果:本综述分析了来自27项随机对照试验(RCTs)的70,199例患者。比伐鲁定组与肝素组在全因死亡率、主要不良心血管事件(mace)、心肌梗死复发、30天内支架血栓形成、亚急性支架血栓形成方面无显著差异。具体而言,比伐鲁定组短期出血(P = 0.001)和再输血(P = 0.001)的发生率明显低于肝素组。结论:与肝素相比,比伐鲁定对PCI术后急性心肌梗死患者具有明确的抗凝作用,且比伐鲁定组出血风险和再输血发生率均较低。本综述有助于PCI管理医生更准确地根据患者病情选择比伐鲁定或肝素,以获得更好的治疗效果和更少的不良事件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at high risk of thrombosis. However, bleeding-related complications during antithrombotic therapy remain a major barrier to effective treatment and can often lead to adverse outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with ACS after PCI.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ACS after PCI were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP database until August 2024. The outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, short-term bleeding, revascularization, and retransfusion. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.

Results: A total of 70,199 patients from 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed in this review. There were no significant differences between the bivalirudin and heparin groups in terms of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis within 30 days, or subacute stent thrombosis. Specifically, the incidence of short-term bleeding (P = 0.001) and retransfusion (P = 0.001) was significantly lower in the bivalirudin group compared to the heparin group. Conversely, the incidence of acute stent thrombosis (P < 0.0001) and revascularization (P = 0.009) was significantly higher in the bivalirudin group.

Conclusions: Compared with heparin, bivalirudin has definite anticoagulant effect in patients with acute myocardial infarction after PCI, and the risk of bleeding and the incidence of retransfusion were lower in the bivalirudin group. This review helps doctors in PCI management choose bivalirudin or heparin more precisely based on patients' conditions for better treatment and fewer adverse events.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Do robot-assisted percutaneous vascular interventions improve effectiveness and safety compared with manual procedures: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Correction: Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis: updated guidance. Grading the evidence for CPET variables in predicting perioperative morbidity and long-term mortality in lung cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scoping review of physical activity and sedentary behavior in Brazilian national surveys: a protocol study. Compliance with existing standards: overview comparing Cochrane with non-Cochrane living systematic reviews.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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