The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
You Zhai, Hongcai Shang, Yan Li, Nan Zhang, Jisi Zhang, Shangwen Wu
{"title":"The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"You Zhai, Hongcai Shang, Yan Li, Nan Zhang, Jisi Zhang, Shangwen Wu","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02782-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at high risk of thrombosis. However, bleeding-related complications during antithrombotic therapy remain a major barrier to effective treatment and can often lead to adverse outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with ACS after PCI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ACS after PCI were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP database until August 2024. The outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, short-term bleeding, revascularization, and retransfusion. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 70,199 patients from 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed in this review. There were no significant differences between the bivalirudin and heparin groups in terms of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis within 30 days, or subacute stent thrombosis. Specifically, the incidence of short-term bleeding (P = 0.001) and retransfusion (P = 0.001) was significantly lower in the bivalirudin group compared to the heparin group. Conversely, the incidence of acute stent thrombosis (P < 0.0001) and revascularization (P = 0.009) was significantly higher in the bivalirudin group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with heparin, bivalirudin has definite anticoagulant effect in patients with acute myocardial infarction after PCI, and the risk of bleeding and the incidence of retransfusion were lower in the bivalirudin group. This review helps doctors in PCI management choose bivalirudin or heparin more precisely based on patients' conditions for better treatment and fewer adverse events.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"39"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11808951/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02782-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at high risk of thrombosis. However, bleeding-related complications during antithrombotic therapy remain a major barrier to effective treatment and can often lead to adverse outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with ACS after PCI.

Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ACS after PCI were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP database until August 2024. The outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, short-term bleeding, revascularization, and retransfusion. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool.

Results: A total of 70,199 patients from 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed in this review. There were no significant differences between the bivalirudin and heparin groups in terms of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis within 30 days, or subacute stent thrombosis. Specifically, the incidence of short-term bleeding (P = 0.001) and retransfusion (P = 0.001) was significantly lower in the bivalirudin group compared to the heparin group. Conversely, the incidence of acute stent thrombosis (P < 0.0001) and revascularization (P = 0.009) was significantly higher in the bivalirudin group.

Conclusions: Compared with heparin, bivalirudin has definite anticoagulant effect in patients with acute myocardial infarction after PCI, and the risk of bleeding and the incidence of retransfusion were lower in the bivalirudin group. This review helps doctors in PCI management choose bivalirudin or heparin more precisely based on patients' conditions for better treatment and fewer adverse events.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信