Heparin Versus Bivalirudin Monotherapy in the Setting of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With...

To evaluate direct comparisons of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) as anticoagulants during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

Relevant information was identified through a search of MEDLINE (1966-September 2015), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1960-September 2015), and Cochrane Databases (publications archived until September 2015) using the terms bivalirudin, unfractionated heparin, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

English-language randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were eligible for inclusion for data review of STEMI where PPCI was performed.

Either bivalirudin or UFH is recommended in the setting of STEMI where PPCI is to be performed. Bivalirudin is touted for its predictable pharmacokinetics, effects on thrombin-mediated platelet inhibition, and favorable outcomes with regard to adverse bleeding profiles, whereas UFH, the gold standard anticoagulant during PPCI, remains a viable treatment strategy. Only recently have direct comparisons of UFH and bivalirudin during PPCI become available. The evidence available is complicated by variances in use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs), P2Y12 inhibitors, access sites, and anticoagulant dosing strategies. We provide a review of contemporary trials and advancements in this area.

When compared to UFH with limited use of GPI, available evidence demonstrates that bivalirudin reduces bleeding at the expense of increasing risk for acute stent thrombosis. Further randomized studies are needed to determine the potential benefits of a post-PCI infusion of bivalirudin to reduce the risk for acute stent thrombosis, long-term follow-up beyond 30 days, and mortality.