Evidence Hub

The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

You Zhai, Hong-Cai Shang, Yan Li, Nan Zhang, Jisi Zhang, Shangwen Wu

Systematic Reviews, 2025

70,199 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at high risk of thrombosis. However, bleeding-related complications during antithrombotic therapy remain a major barrier to effective treatment and can often lead to adverse outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with ACS after PCI. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ACS after PCI were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP database until August 2024. The outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, short-term bleeding, revascularization, and retransfusion. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. A total of 70,199 patients from 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed in this review. There were no significant differences between the bivalirudin and heparin groups in terms of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis within 30 days, or subacute stent thrombosis. Specifically, the incidence of short-term bleeding (P = 0.001) and retransfusion (P = 0.001) was significantly lower…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 70,199 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free