ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Antithrombins/administration & dosage , Catheterization, Peripheral , Endovascular Procedures , Heparin/administration & dosage , Hirudins/administration & dosage , Peptide Fragments/administration & dosage , Peripheral Arterial Disease/therapy , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Antithrombins/adverse effects , Catheterization, Peripheral/adverse effects , Catheterization, Peripheral/mortality , Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects , Endovascular Procedures/mortality , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Hirudins/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Peptide Fragments/adverse effects , Recombinant Proteins/administration & dosage , Recombinant Proteins/adverse effects , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/mortality , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Appropriate activated clotting time (ACT) during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (CA-AF) is essential to minimize periprocedural complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: An electronic search was performed using major databases. Outcomes were thromboembolic (TE) and bleeding complications according to ACT levels (seconds). Heparin dose (U/kg) and time (minutes) to achieve the target ACT was compared among patients receiving vitamin K antagonist (VKA) versus non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOAC). Nineteen studies involving 7,150 patients were identified. Patients with ACT > 300 had less TE (OR, 0.51; 95% CI 0.35-0.74) and bleeding (OR, 0.70; 95% CI 0.60-0.83) compared to ACT < 300, when using any type of oral anticoagulation. The use of VKA was associated with reduced heparin requirements (mean dose: 157 U/kg vs. 209 U/kg, P < 0.03; SDM -0.86 [95% CI -1.39 to -0.33]), and with lower time to achieve the target ACT (mean time: 24 minutes vs. 49 minutes, P < 0.03; SDM -11.02 [95% CI -13.29 to -8.75]) compared to NOACs. No significant publication bias was found. CONCLUSIONS: Performing CA-AF with a target ACT > 300 decreases the risk of TE without increasing the risk of bleeding. Patients receiving VKAs required less heparin and reached the target ACT faster compared to NOACs.
