Bivalirudin versus heparin, without glycoprotein inhibition, in percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes over 10years.

Objective: The choice of antithrombotic agent used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial. While earlier studies suggested a reduction in bleeding events with bivalirudin, these studies were confounded by the concomitant use of glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors (GPI) in the heparin group. More recent studies have challenged the superiority of bivalirudin, pointing to an increased risk of stent thrombosis. Real-world data remains limited.

Methods: We queried our institutional catheterization laboratory database for all PCI cases performed between January 2003 and December 2012 using only heparin or only bivalirudin (no use of GPI). We collected data on relevant patient and procedural characteristics and compared both efficacy and safety outcomes. We adjusted for baseline differences using coarsened exacting matching.

Results: 8061 cases met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 34.9% were performed with heparin alone and 65.1% with bivalirudin. After adjusting for baseline differences, we found that those patients receiving heparin had a slightly lower risk of post-procedural abrupt vessel closure (0.1% vs 0.5%). All other outcomes favored bivalirudin including procedural success (97.2% vs 95.5%), transfusion within 72h (2.2% vs 4.8%), retroperitoneal bleeding (0.1% vs 0.8%), and all-cause mortality (0.9% vs 1.9%). Subgroup analysis suggested that outcomes were different only in non-elective cases and non STEMI cases.

Conclusion: Heparin appears to offer the advantage of slightly reduced risk of abrupt vessel closure post-procedure but at the cost of increased hemorrhagic complications and all-cause mortality. This difference in outcomes may be limited to non-elective and non STEMI cases with femoral access.