Olmedo, Wilman

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.

Background Studies have shown that chronic total occlusion ( CTO ) in a noninfarct‐related artery in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction is linked to increased mortality. It remains unclear whether staged revascularization of a noninfarct‐related artery CTO in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction translates to improved outcomes. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare outcomes between patients presenting with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with concurrent CTO who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of noninfarct‐related artery CTO versus those who did not. Method and Results We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary end points were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, and heart failure readmission. Odds ratios ( ORs ) and 95% confidence intervals ( CIs ) were computed. Random effects model was used and heterogeneity was considered if I 2 >25. Six studies (n=1253 patients) were included in the analysis. There was a significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events ( OR , 0.54; 95% CI , 0.32–0.91), cardiovascular mortality ( OR , 0.43; 95% CI , 0.20–0.95), and heart failure readmissions ( OR , 0.57; 95% CI , 0.36–0.89), favoring the patients in the CTO percutaneous coronary intervention group. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups for all‐cause mortality ( OR , 0.47; 95% CI , 0.22–1.00), myocardial infarction ( OR , 0.78; 95% CI , 0.41–1.46), repeat revascularization ( OR , 1.13; 95% CI , 0.56–2.27), and stroke ( OR , 0.51; 95% CI , 0.20–1.33). Conclusions In this meta‐analysis, CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of the noninfarct‐related artery in patients presenting with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure readmissions.