Bivalirudin versus heparin in contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions for patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

backgroundBivalirudin is associated with fewer major bleeding events than heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but confounding effects of concomitant glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, routine femoral artery access, and less potent effects of clopidogrel limits meaningful comparisons. The present study is a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare bivalirudin to heparin in contemporary practice.

methodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant studies, including comparisons between bivalirudin and heparin in the current medical era from inception to December 23, 2021. Studies reporting incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and net adverse clinical events (NACE) in patients undergoing PCI and meeting the inclusion criteria were retained. Data extraction was performed by three independent reviewers.

resultsThe meta-analysis included 8 studies. Compared to heparin, bivalirudin during PCI was associated with a lower NACE risk, lower all-cause death, and similar MACE risk, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.97, p = 0.02), 0.83 (95% CI 0.74-0.94, p = 0.002), and 0.93 (95% CI 0.78-1.10, p = 0.38), respectively. Moreover, the reduction in NACE was mainly attributed to reduced bleeding (22% reduction in the risk of major bleeding, 95% CI 0.63-0.97, p = 0.03).

conclusionsThese findings suggest that bivalirudin use during PCI reduced the risk of NACE and all-cause death but did not reduce the risk of MACE compared with heparin use in PCI. More studies specifically designed for anticoagulation strategies and a personalized anticoagulation regimen to comprehensively balance bleeding and ischemia risks are required.