ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2017
Safety, efficiency and cost effectiveness of Bivalirudin: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials of Bivalirudin versus Heparin in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Rationale and Methodology.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2020Pooled it
- Magnetic coagulometry: towards a new nanotechnological tool forNanoscale · 2024Article
- Comparison of net adverse clinical events between bivalirudin and heparin as anticoagulants for percutaneous coronary intervention in Chinese patients.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- From Animal Poisons and Venoms to Medicines: Achievements, Challenges and Perspectives in Drug Discovery.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo review the early and more recent studies of Bivalirudin, to assess the safety, effectiveness, and cost benefits of this drug.
methodsLiterature search of MEDLINE and PubMed databases from 1990 to 2017 using keywords as "bivalirubin" and "angiomax", combined with the words "safety", "effectiveness", "efficiency", "side effects", "toxicity", "adverse effect", and "adverse drug reaction".
resultsA total of 66 publications were reviewed. The changes in clinical practice and differences in clinical protocols make it difficult to do direct comparisons of studies among each other. However, most trials showed decreased bleeding complications with bivalirudin, although ischemic complications and mortality were mostly comparable, with some favor towards bivalirudin.
conclusionBivalirudin and heparin are both acceptable options according to current ACA/AHA guidelines. Authors conclude however, that that due to bivalirudin safer bleeding profile, it should be the preferred medication for anticoagulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.