Villablanca, Pedro A

Background Bivalirudin may be an effective alternative anticoagulant to heparin for use in percutaneous peripheral interventions. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing percutaneous peripheral intervention. Methods For this meta-analysis and systematic review, we conducted a search in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane for all the clinical studies in which bivalirudin was compared to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant in percutaneous peripheral interventions. Outcomes studied included all-cause mortality, all-bleeding, major and minor bleeding, and access site complications. Results Eleven studies were included in the analysis, totaling 20,137 patients. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.87), all-bleeding (risk ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.78), major bleeding (risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.96), minor bleeding (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.47–0.92), and access site complications (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.84). There was no significant difference in peri-procedural need for blood transfusions (risk ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.08), myocardial infarction (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.59–1.28), stroke (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–1.01), intracranial bleeding (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.29–2.02), or amputations (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53–1.05). Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests that bivalirudin use for percutaneous peripheral interventions is associated with lower all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications as compared to heparin. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm the current results.

BackgroundBivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI). We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing PAVI.MethodsWe conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary efficacy endpoints were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints include major and life‐threatening bleed according to VARC and BARC bleeding, blood transfusion, vascular complications, and acute kidney injury. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed using the Mantel‐Haenszel method.ResultsThree studies (n = 1690 patients) were included, one randomized trial and two observational studies. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for myocardial infarction (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.20‐0.87). There was no significant difference in all‐cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.62‐1.52), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.52‐2.05), stroke (OR 1.23, 95%CI 0.62‐2.46), vascular complications (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.70‐1.32), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.53‐2.00), blood transfusion (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45‐1.01), major and life‐threatening bleed (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.37‐1.49), and BARC bleeding (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.23‐1.18).ConclusionsIn patient undergoing aortic valve interventions, no difference was seen between the use of bivalirudin and heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent, except for a significant lower myocardial infarction events when bivalirudin was used. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm current results.