SynthesisMedicine2026
Comparison of bivalirudin versus heparin in percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBivalirudin and heparin are commonly employed anticoagulants in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with ACS undergoing PCI.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing bivalirudin with heparin in patients with ACS undergoing PCI. The outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), net adverse clinical events, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and stroke.
resultsThis study included 11 RCTs and 17 cohort studies, encompassing 584,249 patients. Among in-hospital outcomes, bivalirudin was found to significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-0.88, P < .001, I2 = 0%) and major bleeding (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.88, P < .001, I2 = 51%) compared with heparin, while there were no significant differences in MACEs, MI, ST, and stroke. Among 30-day follow-up outcomes, bivalirudin was found to significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.95, P = .006, I2 = 24%), cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94, P = .004, I2 = 1%), major bleeding (RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.72, P < .001, I2 = 67%), and net adverse clinical events (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.89, P < .001, I2 = 55%) compared with heparin, while there were no significant differences in MACEs, MI, ST, and stroke.
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that bivalirudin may offer advantages over heparin in reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality and major bleeding in patients with ACS undergoing PCI, with no significant differences in ischemic outcomes such as MACEs, MI, ST, or stroke. These findings suggest that bivalirudin may be a reasonable alternative to heparin in selected patients, but more large-scale, long-term RCTs are needed to confirm these results.
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.