Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin for percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

Bivalirudin versus heparin in STEMI after BRIGHT-4 trial: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of bivalirudin-based anticoagulation over heparin-based anticoagulation for coronary percutaneous intervention has been debated for a long time. Multiple trials have shown promising benefits of bivalirudin over heparin therapy with the most recent addition being the BRIGHT-4 trial. We performed a meta-analysis to assess evidence from these trials, focusing on the coronary intervention of the STEMI population.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed based on PRISMA guidelines after registering in PROSPERO (CRD42023394701). Databases were searched for relevant articles published before January 2023. Pertinent data from the included studies were extracted and analyzed using RevMan v5.4.

RESULTS

Out of 2375 studies evaluated, 13 randomized control trials with 24 360 acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients were included for analysis. The bivalirudin-based anticoagulation reduced the net clinical events (OR 0.75, CI 0.61-0.92), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (OR 0.85, CI 0.74-0.98), any bleeding (OR 0.61, CI 0.45-0.83), major bleeding (OR 0.54, CI 0.39-0.75), all-cause mortality (OR 0.79, CI 0.67-0.92) and cardiac mortality (OR 0.78, CI 0.65-0.93) significantly without increasing the risk of any stent thrombosis (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52-1.61), definite stent thrombosis (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.62-2.22) and acute stent thrombosis (OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.69-6.09) significantly at 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion-based anticoagulation during STEMI PCI has significant benefits over heparin therapy for cardiovascular outcomes without a significant increase in the risk of thrombotic outcomes.

A meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis of bivalirudin versus heparin in high-risk patients for percutaneous coronary intervention

This meta‐analysis was performed to compare the safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomic of bivalirudin versus heparin in high‐risk patients for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Earlier meta‐analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin during PCI demonstrated that bivalirudin caused less bleeding with more stent thrombosis. However, little data were available on the safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in high‐risk patients for PCI. Thus, we performed a meta‐analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety in the “high‐risk” patients. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to July 30, 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were all‐cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE); secondary outcomes were major and minor bleeding, followed by a cost‐minimization analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin using a local drug and medical costs reported in China. Subgroup analysis was based on the type of disease of the high‐risk population. Finally, a total of 10 randomized controlled trials involved 42,699 patients were collected. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was employed to appraise the research quality. No significant difference was noted between bivalirudin and heparin regarding all‐cause death and MACE. However, subgroup analysis showed that bivalirudin caused less major bleeding in female (OR:0.65, 95% CI:0.53–0.79), diabetes (OR:0.55, 95%CI:0.42–0.73), and CKD (OR:0.59, 95%CI:0.63–1.65). The scatterers of the included literature were approximately symmetrical, and no research was outside the funnel plot. Additionally, cost‐minimization analysis showed that heparin was likely to represent a cost‐effective option compared with bivalirudin in China, with potential savings of 2129.53 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for one PCI. Overall, the meta‐analysis showed that although bivalirudin appeared to have a lower risk of major bleeding rate, the overall effectiveness and safety between the two groups showed no significant difference in high‐risk patients for PCI. But the results of the cost‐minimization analysis showed that heparin could be a potential cost‐saving drug than bivalirudin in patients for PCI in China.

Bivalirudin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and independent predictors of postoperative adverse events in these patients: A real world retrospective study

ABSTRACT

The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has always been a hot topic in perioperative antithrombotic therapy, but there are still some controversies. So studies are needed to provide more evidence, especially the real world study which includes patients excluded from previous RCT studys. Our study aimed to investigate these information and analyze the independent predictors of postoperative adverse events.A retrospective study enrolled 1416 patients underwent PCI in Tianjin Chest Hospital from May 2016 to October 2017. The incidence of stent-thrombosis and net clinical adverse events, including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent target-vessel revascularization and bleeding, were followed up for 30 days and 1 year. Logistic regression and COX regression were respectively used to analyze independent predictors of bleeding events within 30-days, and independent predictors of Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with stent implantation within 1-year.Seven hundred six patients were treated with bivalirudin while 710 with unfractionated heparin (UFH). The proportions of diabetes, hypertension, anemia, myocardial-infarction history, PCI history, moderate-to-severe renal-impairment, gastrointestinal-bleeding history in the bivalirudin group were significantly higher (P < .05). Women, anemia were independent risk factors for bleeding within 30-days (P < .05). Among 682 patients with stent implantation in bivalirudin group, anemia, Body Mass Index (BMI) >25 kg/m2, KILLIP ≥2, ejection fraction (EF) <45%, eGFR <60 ml/minutes were independent risk factors for MACCE, while Statins, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) were independent protective factors for MACCE with-in 1-year (P < .05).Bivalirudin have good anticoagulant effect and lower bleeding risk during PCI, especially in patients with higher bleeding risk. In patients treated with bivalirudin, female, anemia were independent predictors of bleeding within 30-days, BMI >25 kg/m2, anemia, KILLIP ≥2, EF <45%, eGFR <60 ml/minutes were independent risk factors and Statins, PPI were independent protective factors of MACCE within 1-year.

The impact of unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin on patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES

To compare bleeding and clinical events of patients with stable angina or silent ischemia undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or bivalirudin.

BACKGROUND

Few direct comparisons between UFH monotherapy versus bivalirudin exist for patients with stable ischemic heart disease undergoing PCI.

METHODS

A prospective, investigator-initiated, single-center, single-blinded, randomized trial of UFH versus bivalirudin was conducted. The primary endpoint was all bleeding (major and minor) from index-hospitalization to 30 days post discharge. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (MACCE) and net adverse clinical events (NACE).

RESULTS

Two-hundred-sixty patients were randomized for treatment with either UFH (n = 123) (47%) or bivalirudin (n = 137) (53%) There were no significant differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics between the two groups. Primary endpoint was similar in both groups (10.9% with bivalirudin vs 7.3% with UFH [P = 0.31]). Major bleeding rates were 5.8% and 2.4%, respectively (P = 0.17). There was a higher MACCE (3.5% vs 0%, P = 0.03) and NACE (8.8% vs 2.4%, P = 0.03) rate with bivalirudin compared to UFH, respectively. Bivalirudin had increased odds of NACE (OR = 3.65, 95% CI: 1.00-13.3.6). Death and stent thrombosis rates were low and similar in both groups. Radial access was associated with fewer bleeding events compared to femoral access but not statistically significant (P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with stable angina or silent ischemia, there was no difference between UFH and bivalirudin in bleeding rates up to 30-days post-PCI. MACCE and NACE were higher among the bivalirudin group. Radial access was associated with a numerically lower rate of bleeding compared with femoral access.

Bivalirudin versus heparin in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The anticoagulant of choice during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in women is not well established.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted for trials that randomized patients undergoing PCI to bivalirudin versus heparin, and reported outcomes of interest in women. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RR) were calculated. Main outcome was net adverse clinical events (NACE) at 30-days. Other outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major bleeding at 30-days. 1-year all-cause mortality and MACE were also examined.

RESULTS

Nine trials that randomized women undergoing PCI to bivalirudin (n=3960) versus heparin (n=4050) were included. At 30-days, bivalirudin was associated with reduced risk of NACE (RR=0.85; 95% CI 0.73-0.98; p=0.03), mainly driven by reduction in major bleeding (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.49-0.71; p<0.001) compared with heparin. No difference in MACE (p=0.92), all-cause mortality (p=0.23), MI (p=0.86); or TVR (p=0.53) was demonstrated between both groups. At 1-year, the risk of MACE and all-cause mortality was similar in both groups. On a subgroup analysis, the benefit associated with bivalirudin appeared to be less evident when Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) was used as bailout therapy with heparin, however without significant interaction. Furthermore, in STEMI population, no difference in NACE, MACE, or major bleeding was observed between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In women undergoing PCI, bivalirudin is associated with reduced risk of major bleeding and NACE compared with heparin especially when GPI is routinely used.