Key result
Bivalirudin compared with heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention caused less major bleeding (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.53-0.76) but more stent thrombosis (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.19-2.09).
Why the study?
Does bivalirudin reduce bleeding and ischemic outcomes compared to heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Meta-Analysis (n=41,871)
Does bivalirudin reduce bleeding and ischemic outcomes compared to heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Substituting bivalirudin for heparin during PCI confers a tradeoff between reduced bleeding and increased early stent thrombosis, with the bleeding advantage attenuated by transradial access and potent P2Y12 inhibitors.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Bivalirudin reduces bleeding but raises stent thrombosis risk versus heparin in PCI; confirms a tradeoff attenuated by radial access and potent P2Y12 inhibitors.
BACKGROUND: Patients treated with bivalirudin in randomized clinical trials of percutaneous coronary intervention generally have less bleeding but more acute stent thrombosis (ST) than do patients treated with heparin, but differences have varied among trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We modeled the risk of major hemorrhage and ischemic outcomes 30 days after percutaneous coronary intervention by treatment assignment and the use of adjunctive therapies in 18 randomized clinical trials enrolling 41,871 patients. Overall bivalirudin caused less major bleeding (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.76), more ST (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.19-2.09), and no difference in mortality (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14) than heparin. A risk-benefit analysis identified 19 fewer bleeds and 5 more STs for every 1000 patients treated with bivalirudin in place of heparin. No significant bleeding advantage of bivalirudin over heparin could be identified in randomized clinical trials when transradial access (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57-1.41) and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used with bivalirudin in the majority of patients (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87-1.31). The use of prasugrel or ticagrelor eliminated bleeding differences (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.03) but did not reduce the risk of ST after bivalirudin (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.48-3.27). CONCLUSIONS: Substituting bivalirudin for heparin conferred a tradeoff between bleeding and ST. Transradial access, adjunctive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and potent P2Y12 inhibitors attenuated the bleeding advantage of bivalirudin over heparin but had no apparent effect on early ST. New approaches to reduce bleeding and ischemic complications during percutaneous coronary intervention warrant further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bittl et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis in percutaneous coronary intervention (n=41,871). Bivalirudin vs. Heparin was evaluated on major bleeding (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.76). Bivalirudin compared with heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention caused less major bleeding (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.53-0.76) but more stent thrombosis (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.19-2.09).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: