Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31636795›Full record

ArticleCardiology research2019

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Hiten Patel, Rana Garris, Suchit Bhutani, Priyank Shah, Upamanyu Rampal, Rahul Vasudev, Gabriel Melki, Bader Abu Ghalyoun, Hartaj Virk, Mahesh Bikkina and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiology research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Safety of Bivalirudin Combined with Ticagrelor in the Emergency PCI in Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Hiten PatelDepartment of Cardiology, Cape Fear Valley Medical Center, Campbell University, Fayetteville, NC, USA.
Rana GarrisSt Joseph's Health, New York Medical College, Paterson, NJ, USA.
Suchit BhutaniThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Priyank ShahDepartment of Cardiology, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Albany, GA, USA.
Upamanyu RampalSt Joseph's Health, New York Medical College, Paterson, NJ, USA.
Rahul VasudevSt Joseph's Health, New York Medical College, Paterson, NJ, USA.
Gabriel MelkiSt Joseph's Health, New York Medical College, Paterson, NJ, USA.
Bader Abu GhalyounSt Joseph's Health, New York Medical College, Paterson, NJ, USA.
Hartaj VirkSt Joseph's Health, New York Medical College, Paterson, NJ, USA.
Mahesh BikkinaSt Joseph's Health, New York Medical College, Paterson, NJ, USA.
Fayez ShamoonSt Joseph's Health, New York Medical College, Paterson, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with acute myocardial infarction who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Earlier trials comparing bivalirudin and UFH during PCI demonstrated that bivalirudin caused less bleeding with more stent thrombosis. Since then, adjunct antiplatelet strategies have evolved. Improved upstream platelet inhibition with potent P2Y12 inhibitors decreased the need for routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI), resulting in similar outcomes among UFH and bivalirudin. Therefore, the role of bivalirudin in modern PCI practices is questionable.

methodsWe utilized Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 to perform a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 22,844 patients to compare bivalirudin to UFH in patients with acute myocardial infarction requiring revascularization.

resultsThere was no difference between bivalirudin and UFH regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE), risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 - 1.12; P = 0.83) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 - 1.07; P = 0.18). Bivalirudin increased acute stent thrombosis (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.49 - 5.13; P = 0.001), which was only significant among ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) only trials. Bivalirudin caused less major bleeding (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 - 0.90; P = 0.007), which was negated when GPI was used provisionally (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 - 1.33; P = 0.67).

conclusionsAmong patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent PCI, bivalirudin and UFH demonstrated similar MACE and cardiovascular mortality. Bivalirudin increased acute stent thrombosis, which was more remarkable among STEMI. Bivalirudin decreased major bleeding, but this benefit was negated when GPI was used provisionally.

Indexed as

BivalirudinHeparinPercutaneous coronary angiographySTEMI

Identifiers

PMID31636795
PMCPMC6785291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.