Key result
Bivalirudin reduced 30-day nonaccess site bleeding compared to heparin (2.6% vs 3.8%; OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.60-0.77; P<0.00001) in PCI patients, though this did not translate into mortality benefits.
Why the study?
Does bivalirudin reduce nonaccess site bleeding compared to heparin in patients undergoing PCI?
Meta-Analysis (n=32,587)
Does bivalirudin reduce nonaccess site bleeding compared to heparin in patients undergoing PCI?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Bivalirudin reduces nonaccess and access site bleeding compared to heparin in PCI, but without mortality benefit and largely dependent on the concurrent use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the heparin arm.
Background Transradial approach has significantly decreased the rate of access site bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), therefore potentially mitigating the benefits offered by bivalirudin in lowering major bleeding complications as compared to heparin. However, nonaccess site bleeding, that represent the majority of hemorrhagic complications, still carry negative prognostic consequences for these patients and no study has so far defined the exact impact of bivalirudin on nonaccess site bleeding, that was therefore the aim of present meta‐analysis. Methods and study outcomes Literature archives (Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane) and main scientific sessions were scanned comparing bivalirudin vs. heparin in patients undergoing PCI. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of nonaccess site bleeding within 30 days. Secondary endpoints were 30 days mortality and the occurrence of access‐site bleeding. Results A total of nine randomized clinical trials were finally included, involving 32,587 patients, 55.8% randomized to bivalirudin. Bivalirudin significantly reduced the rate of nonaccess site bleeding (2.6 vs. 3.8%, OR [95% CI] = 0.68 [0.60–0.77], P < 0.00001, Phet = 0.10). However, the reduction of hemorrhagic events was more pronounced when bivalirudin was compared to heparin plus glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors than when it was compared to heparin alone (r = −0.01 (−0.02; −0.001), P = 0.02). Similar results were observed for access‐site bleeding (OR [95% CI] = 0.67 [0.57–0.79], P < 0.000001, Phet = 0.10), with a significant role of glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors use (r = −0.02 (−0.04; −0.004), P = 0.017). Moreover, the observed benefits in hemorrhagic complications did not translate into mortality benefits (OR [95% CI] = 0.89 [0.76–1.05], P = 0.18; Phet = 0.12; r = 0.21 (−1.12; 1.53), P = 0.76). Conclusions The present meta‐analysis shows that bivalirudin can provide a significant reduction of both access and nonaccess site bleeding in patients undergoing PCI. However, these hemorrhagic benefits did not impact on survival, and moreover, were significantly conditioned by the association of heparin with potent antithrombotic strategies, such as glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors, rather than by heparin or bivalirudin alone. Therefore, we could not provide any clinical evidence for the routine use of bivalirudin as preferred anticoagulation strategy for PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Verdoia et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis in percutaneous coronary interventions (n=32,587). Bivalirudin vs. Heparin was evaluated on occurrence of nonaccess site bleeding within 30 days (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.77, p=<0.00001). Bivalirudin reduced 30-day nonaccess site bleeding compared to heparin (2.6% vs 3.8%; OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.60-0.77; P<0.00001) in PCI patients, though this did not translate into mortality benefits.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: