ライフサイエンスコーパス: bivalirudin

1 d diabetes and randomization to UFH+GPI (vs. bivalirudin).

2 d to identify the nonhematologic benefits of bivalirudin.

3 tality may explain the survival benefit with bivalirudin.

4 icated in the survival benefit observed with bivalirudin.

5 isk for bleeding are least likely to receive bivalirudin.

6 cute coronary syndrome patients treated with bivalirudin.

7 d ischaemic events or bleeding compared with bivalirudin.

8 rsus one (<1%) of 1601 patients treated with bivalirudin.

9 after percutaneous coronary intervention) or bivalirudin.

10 nd whether it interacted with the benefit of bivalirudin.

11 ce response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive bivalirudin (0.75 mg/kg intravenous bolus followed by 1.

12 sk of acute stent thrombosis was higher with bivalirudin (1.1% vs. 0.2%; relative risk, 6.11; 95% CI,

13 lirudin, 3.8%; vascular closure devices plus bivalirudin, 2.3%; P < .001).

14 without major bleeding (18 fewer deaths with bivalirudin; 2.6% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.048).

15 hospitals in Michigan and were treated with bivalirudin (28,378) or with heparin and glycoprotein II

16 ssion, 6.1%; vascular closure devices, 4.6%; bivalirudin, 3.8%; vascular closure devices plus bivalir

17 ts with major bleeding (20 fewer deaths with bivalirudin; 5.8% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.025) and without majo

18 During this period 748 patients received bivalirudin, 699 patients received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa

19 ith shorter than with longer procedures with bivalirudin (7 [2.1%] vs 7 [0.7%]; relative risk, 2.87;

20 sease burden and were less likely to receive bivalirudin (8.8% vs 27.3%).

21 net adverse clinical events were lower with bivalirudin (8.8% vs. 11.9%; RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0

22 The reduction of mortality with bivalirudin across WBC tertiles was independent of major

23 vidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronar

24 We investigated the outcomes of switching to bivalirudin after initial administration of heparin in p

25 Patients age > or =75 years treated with bivalirudin alone had similar ischemic outcomes, but sig

26 are not statistically different with either bivalirudin alone or a heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/III

27 greater than the estimated increase in MI by bivalirudin alone rather than heparin plus a glycoprotei

28 The number needed to treat with bivalirudin alone to avoid 1 major bleeding event was lo

29 dy was to compare the effect of therapy with bivalirudin alone versus bivalirudin plus eptifibatide o

30 -eluting stents versus bare metal stents and bivalirudin alone versus heparin plus a GPI.

31 treat to avoid 1 major bleeding event using bivalirudin alone was the lowest in the elderly group, e

32 glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor rather than bivalirudin alone) (model c-statistic = 0.74).

33 Treatment with bivalirudin alone, as compared with heparin plus glycopr

34 Anticoagulation with bivalirudin alone, as compared with heparin plus glycopr

35 cations are significantly less frequent with bivalirudin alone.

36 n plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or bivalirudin alone.

37 Bivalirudin also reduced the risk of major bleeding (2.6

38 cedure time was identified in 1286 receiving bivalirudin and 1412 receiving heparin plus GPI.

39 Femoral access patients who had bivalirudin and a vascular closure device served as a re

40 Bivalirudin and fondaparinux have been used to treat HIT

41 Bivalirudin and fondaparinux require further study befor

42 erebral emboli on MRI did not differ between bivalirudin and heparin groups (65.5% vs. 58.1%; p = 0.5

43 tes were not significantly different between bivalirudin and heparin plus a GPI in patients with non-

44 Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adv

45 of subacute (1-30 days) ST were similar with bivalirudin and heparin+/-GPI (1.0% versus 1.4%, P=0.24)

46 s observational analysis, the combination of bivalirudin and radial access was associated with reduce

47 s to compare the safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) for carotid

48 arction and the comparative outcomes between bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) have not be

49 patients receiving vascular closure devices, bivalirudin, and both strategies, respectively (P < .001

50 Fondaparinux, bivalirudin, and desirudin have recently been added to t

51 a cost-effectiveness analysis of argatroban, bivalirudin, and fondaparinux for the treatment of suspe

52 ciation between the site of arterial access, bivalirudin, and periprocedural bleeding rates in 501 01

53 mary percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin anticoagulation were randomized in a 2x2 fac

54 artery occlusion undergoing primary PCI with bivalirudin anticoagulation were randomized in an open-l

55 ymptom onset and undergoing primary PCI with bivalirudin anticoagulation, infarct size at 30 days was

56 t reinfarction after drug-eluting stents and bivalirudin anticoagulation.

57 mary percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin anticoagulation.

58 bciximab, eptifibatide); or DTIs (r-hirudin, bivalirudin, argatroban).

59 eath and/or major bleeding at 30 days in the bivalirudin arm of the EUROMAX trial did not translate i

60 le (IV) methods with operator preference for bivalirudin as the instrument were used.

61 Bivalirudin, as compared with heparin and glycoprotein I

62 Treatment with the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin, as compared with heparin plus glycoprotein

63 Bivalirudin, as compared with the control intervention,

64 ntre, superiority trial to compare REG1 with bivalirudin at 225 hospitals in North America and Europe

65 We aimed to define the effects of a bivalirudin-based anticoagulation regimen compared with

66 Compared with a heparin-based regimen, a bivalirudin-based regimen increases the risk of myocardi

67 ere was an increase in the risk of MACE with bivalirudin-based regimens compared with heparin-based r

68 Overall, bivalirudin-based regimens lowered the risk of major ble

69 ceive early treatment with UFH, switching to bivalirudin before primary percutaneous coronary interve

70 c shock [yes vs no]) to heparin (70 U/kg) or bivalirudin (bolus 0.75 mg/kg; infusion 1.75 mg/kg per h

71 These findings suggest that bivalirudin but not heparin might be recommended as an a

72 creased risk of AST in patients treated with bivalirudin but not patients treated with heparin plus G

73 arin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option i

74 y was lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy or bivalirudin + catheterization laboratory GPI (p = 0.02).

75 Overall bivalirudin caused less major bleeding (odds ratio [OR],

76 Bivalirudin compared with heparin +/- GPI resulted in re

77 rred more frequently in patients assigned to bivalirudin compared with heparin plus a GPI (1.4% versu

78 rs occurred less frequently in patients with bivalirudin compared with heparin plus a GPI (2.8% versu

79 sts regarding potential survival benefits of bivalirudin compared with heparin with routine or option

80 T was more frequent in patients treated with bivalirudin compared with heparin+/-GPI because of incre

81 en revascularisation (1.16, 0.997-1.34) with bivalirudin compared with heparin, with no effect on mor

82 ctiveness of procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin in pati

83 duction in cardiac mortality in those taking bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin plus a

84 Although the reduction in mortality with bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin plus gl

85 point (1.05, 95% CI: 0.68-1.63, P=0.83) with bivalirudin could not be demonstrated.

86 In contrast, bivalirudin did not inhibit in vivo homing of BMCs.

87 In contrast, the thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin did not interfere with BMC homing or SDF-1/C

88 ed trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48

89 Whether the benefits of bivalirudin documented in the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing

90 g risk estimates affected the utilization of bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention (P

91 ciximab with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention (P

92 ation may be reduced by anticoagulation with bivalirudin during TAVR.

93 In multivariable analysis, bivalirudin emerged as the only independent predictor of

94 Substituting bivalirudin for heparin conferred a tradeoff between ble

95 ion between white blood cell (WBC) count and bivalirudin for the risk of mortality, and whether this

96 Treatment with bivalirudin glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors significant

97 ult of a lower rate of major bleeding in the bivalirudin group (5.8%vs 9.2%, HR 0.61, 0.48-0.78, p<0.

98 me between groups (122 patients [13%] in the bivalirudin group and 140 patients [15%] in the heparin

99 data were available for 1696 patients in the bivalirudin group and 1702 patients in the control group

100 occurred in 32 (3.5%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 28 (3.1%) of 907 patients in the h

101 occurred in 79 (8.7%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 52 (5.7%) of 907 patients in the h

102 751 (83%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 740 (82%) of 907 patients in the h

103 n 12.3% of the patients (369 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group and in 12.8% (383 of 3002) in the hepa

104 tion occurred in 2.0% of the patients in the bivalirudin group and in 2.4% in the heparin group (haza

105 Bleeding was significantly lower in the bivalirudin group both in the radial- and femoral-treate

106 At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial inf

107 The rate of NACE was lower in the bivalirudin group than in the control group (15.6%vs 18.

108 0.71, 0.51-0.98, p=0.037) were lower in the bivalirudin group than in the control group.

109 efficacy end point was 10.6% (n=205) in the bivalirudin group versus 10.2% (n=191) in the heparin pl

110 NACE occurred in 258 patients (13.4%) in the bivalirudin group versus 275 patients (14.7%) in the hep

111 e of safety end point was 3.4% (n=66) in the bivalirudin group versus 6.3% (n=117) in the heparin plu

112 .74) or noncardiac death (15 [1.4%] for the bivalirudin group vs 11 [1.0%] for the control group; RR

113 to 1 year was also similar (27 [2.5%] in the bivalirudin group vs 25 [2.3%] in the control group; RR,

114 s of 1-year cardiac death (44 [4.0%] for the bivalirudin group vs 48 [4.3%] for the control group; RR

115 Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to

116 ients (274 in abciximab/UFH group vs. 290 in bivalirudin group) were enrolled in this study.

117 Patients treated with bivalirudin had a significantly lower incidence of bleed

118 n myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with bivalirudin had lower bleeding and mortality rates, but

119 ensity score matching, patients treated with bivalirudin had lower in-hospital event rates with signi

120 Patients receiving bivalirudin had shorter average length of stay (mean 4.3

121 who were treated with the thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin had substantially lower 30-day rates of majo

122 Use of bivalirudin has been associated with a reduction in the

123 Bivalirudin has been associated with reduced bleeding an

124 Bivalirudin has been shown to reduce bleeding events in

125 Additionally, the antithrombin agent bivalirudin has emerged as a frontrunner in the invasive

126 Compared with bivalirudin, heparin reduces the incidence of major adve

127 ute Coronary Syndrome Angiography (EUROMAX), bivalirudin improved 30-day clinical outcomes with reduc

128 sed acute stent thrombosis, primary PCI with bivalirudin improved 30-day net clinical outcomes, with

129 red the relative safety of radial access and bivalirudin in percutaneous coronary intervention.

130 ore STs for every 1000 patients treated with bivalirudin in place of heparin.

131 Real-world performance of bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary interventio

132 Patients treated with bivalirudin in randomized clinical trials of percutaneou

133 daparinux prevailed over both argatroban and bivalirudin in terms of cost ($151 vs $1250 and $1466, r

134 coprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used with bivalirudin in the majority of patients (OR, 1.07; 95% C

135 Bivalirudin increased the risk of stent thrombosis (risk

136 was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion.

137 ary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a com

138 Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did

139 gned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion.

140 vents averted compared with IV argatroban or bivalirudin infusions.

141 Bivalirudin is a synthetic anticoagulant drug sometimes

142 Bivalirudin is an alternative to heparin in patients und

143 th heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, whereas bivalirudin is approved as an alternative to heparin for

144 Bivalirudin is commonly administered alone to clopidogre

145 stent thrombosis (AST) have been noted when bivalirudin is discontinued at the end of the procedure,

146 The mortality benefit with bivalirudin is most likely correlated with reductions in

147 bleeding risk can affect physicians' use of bivalirudin is unknown.

148 The direct thrombin inhibitor, bivalirudin, is associated with similar efficacy and sup

149 ve stenting, the addition of eptifibatide to bivalirudin lowered PR to multiple agonists and the tens

150 Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin a

151 terventions, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin may result in more favorable in-hospital out

152 ein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) (n=1802) versus bivalirudin monotherapy (n=1800).

153 The effectiveness and safety of bivalirudin monotherapy and paclitaxel-eluting stenting

154 D patients with baseline troponin elevation, bivalirudin monotherapy compared with heparin plus a GPI

155 To assess the effect of bivalirudin monotherapy compared with unfractionated or

156 parin plus a GPI, 1800 patients allocated to bivalirudin monotherapy had lower rates of all-cause mor

157 Our study findings suggest that bivalirudin monotherapy is an acceptable, if not the mor

158 Length of stay was lowest with bivalirudin monotherapy or bivalirudin + catheterization

159 Compared with heparin plus GPI, bivalirudin monotherapy resulted in similar protection f

160 arin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin monotherapy resulted in similar reductions i

161 Bivalirudin monotherapy safely reduces major bleeding in

162 d 4.3% versus 4.6% in patients randomized to bivalirudin monotherapy versus heparin plus a GPI, respe

163 tients were randomized (1:1) in ambulance to bivalirudin monotherapy vs unfractionated or low-molecul

164 fty patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI with bivalirudin monotherapy were randomized to receive 60 mg

165 n plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or bivalirudin monotherapy).

166 not significantly different in the 3 groups (bivalirudin monotherapy, 9.6%; bivalirudin plus glycopro

167 ention with either unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin monotherapy.

168 inhibitor (GPI), bivalirudin plus a GPI, or bivalirudin monotherapy.

169 ntly reduced major bleeding at 30 days (2.5% bivalirudin monotherapy; P=0.005, 2.0% bivalirudin plus

170 MI undergoing primary PCI were randomized to bivalirudin (n = 1,800) or unfractionated heparin plus a

171 ronary intervention (PCI) were randomized to bivalirudin (n = 1,800) versus unfractionated heparin (U

172 treatment status were randomly treated with bivalirudin (n = 102) or bivalirudin plus eptifibatide (

173 A total of 5,800 patients were randomized to bivalirudin (n = 2,889) or heparin +/- GPI (n = 2,911).

174 Patients were randomized to bivalirudin (n = 29) versus heparin (n = 31).

175 ntion, who were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin (n=1928) or heparin (unfractionated heparin

176 There were 59,917 STEMI PPCIs receiving bivalirudin (n=6735) or heparin+GPI (n=53,182).

177 s were allocated REG1 and 1616 were assigned bivalirudin, of whom 1605 and 1601 patients, respectivel

178 goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the proc

179 The BRAVO (Effect of Bivalirudin on Aortic Valve Intervention Outcomes)-3 ran

180 ffects of heparin and the thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin on bone marrow-derived mononuclear cell (BMC

181 The effect of adding eptifibatide to bivalirudin on platelet reactivity (PR) and TIP-FCS, and

182 uded age >/=75 years, white race, and use of bivalirudin or a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor during

183 e patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin or heparin during PCI, which was performed p

184 e randomly allocated patients 1:1 to receive bivalirudin or heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhi

185 ect of procedure duration on AST when either bivalirudin or heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa recept

186 ntion with stents and were randomized 1:1 to bivalirudin or heparin plus GPI.

187 88 international sites, randomized to either bivalirudin or heparin+/-a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibit

188 s coronary intervention (PPCI), treated with bivalirudin or heparin+GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor (h

189 h 31, 2008 among patients receiving PPCI and bivalirudin or heparin+GPI in the Premier hospital datab

190 enting between May 2005 and March 2012 using bivalirudin or UFH.

191 aimed to compare antithrombotic therapy with bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin during this proced

192 d December 2012 who were treated with either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin.

193 r whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin.

194 ransported for primary PCI to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated or low-molecular-weight he

195 aneous coronary intervention, treatment with bivalirudin or with heparin with optional use of GPI res

196 .03) but did not reduce the risk of ST after bivalirudin (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.48-3.27).

197 uch as fondaparinux, danaparoid, argatroban, bivalirudin, or one of the new direct-acting oral antico

198 anual compression, vascular closure devices, bivalirudin, or vascular closure devices plus bivalirudi

199 iving REG1 vs two [<1%] of 1601 treated with bivalirudin; OR 3.49, 95% CI 0.73-16.82; p=0.10), but ma

200 ibitors attenuated the bleeding advantage of bivalirudin over heparin but had no apparent effect on e

201 No significant bleeding advantage of bivalirudin over heparin could be identified in randomiz

202 A benefit of bivalirudin over heparin could not be established with t

203 ous coronary intervention and the benefit of bivalirudin over heparin remain unknown in an era of rou

204 tal variables; using propensity scores, each bivalirudin patient was matched to 3 heparin+GPI treated

205 Compared with heparin+GPI patients, bivalirudin patients had fewer deaths (3.2% versus 4.0%;

206 Seventy-nine percent of bivalirudin patients matched, resulting in 21,316 STEMI

207 e was 50.5% during UFH PCIs and 12.0% during bivalirudin PCIs.

208 arin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or b

209 arin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or b

210 lus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI), bivalirudin plus a GPI, or bivalirudin monotherapy.

211 ndomly treated with bivalirudin (n = 102) or bivalirudin plus eptifibatide (n = 98).

212 ect of therapy with bivalirudin alone versus bivalirudin plus eptifibatide on platelet reactivity mea

213 In CN and MT patients, bivalirudin plus eptifibatide was associated with marked

214 the 3 groups (bivalirudin monotherapy, 9.6%; bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, 9.7%;

215 (2.5% bivalirudin monotherapy; P=0.005, 2.0% bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors; P=0.0

216 dual patient risk profiles and the fact that bivalirudin prevented approximately 6 major bleeds for e

217 Heparin, but not bivalirudin profoundly and dose-dependently inhibited ba

218 al group) were compared with those receiving bivalirudin (radial combination group).

219 spital use of bleeding avoidance strategies (bivalirudin, radial access, or vascular closure device)

220 nd the use of BAS (vascular closure devices, bivalirudin, radial approach, and their combinations) we

221 ore GPI adjustment, bleeding reductions with bivalirudin ranged from 2.04% (IV: 95% confidence interv

222 undergoing primary PCI, anticoagulation with bivalirudin reduced the rates of net adverse clinical ev

223 Bivalirudin reduces cardiac mortality in patients with S

224 assigned REG1 and 103 (6%) of 1616 allocated bivalirudin reporting a primary endpoint event (odds rat

225 Bivalirudin resulted in increased acute (<24 h) stent th

226 When compared with UFH+GPI, bivalirudin resulted in lower 3-year rates of major blee

227 d to result in a superior safety profile for bivalirudin, resulting in enhanced patient care.

228 GPI, possibly because of the rapid offset of bivalirudin's antithrombotic effect during a window of l

229 Bivalirudin significantly reduced the primary outcome co

230 Bivalirudin, started during transport for primary PCI, i

231 cording to their subsequent randomization to bivalirudin (switch group, n = 1,178) or UFH plus a glyc

232 le to early ST was significantly lower after bivalirudin than after heparin+/-GPI.

233 eding was not lower among those who received bivalirudin than among those who received heparin monoth

234 ular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respecti

235 cal events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin.

236 eport details the selection of an aptamer to bivalirudin that functions as an antidote in buffer.

237 For bivalirudin, the incidence of the efficacy endpoint was

238 nfarction, a significant interaction between bivalirudin therapy and admission WBC count was apparent

239 ld" retrospective analysis demonstrates that bivalirudin therapy compared with heparin+GPI is associa

240 treated medically after angiographic triage, bivalirudin therapy significantly reduced bleeding compl

241 tality and cardiac mortality between WBC and bivalirudin therapy.

242 d trials has demonstrated the superiority of bivalirudin to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors plus hep

243 inical outcomes in abciximab with UFH versus bivalirudin treated non-ST-segment elevation myocardial

244 ty within 30 days occurred in 4 of 60 (6.7%) bivalirudin-treated patients compared with 16 of 40 (40.

245 ble to early ST occurred in 4 of 2479 (0.2%) bivalirudin-treated patients versus 16 of 2456 (0.7%) he

246 Three-year cardiac mortality was reduced in bivalirudin-treated patients with major bleeding (20 few

247 In ISAR-REACT 4, bivalirudin treatment showed similar efficacy profiles a

248 There was an increase in bivalirudin use and a lower incidence of bleeding after

249 Using a pre-post design, we compared bivalirudin use before and after this implementation, fo

250 Bivalirudin use compared with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhi

251 Bivalirudin use during PCI has been shown to reduce blee

252 dergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, bivalirudin use during percutaneous coronary interventio

253 ment paradox, through a rational increase in bivalirudin use in patients at intermediate and high ble

254 Bivalirudin use increased (17% to 30%), whereas any hepa

255 Bivalirudin use increased from 2009 to 2013 but declined

256 Bivalirudin use increased in intermediate (27% to 35%, p

257 Overall, bivalirudin use increased in the post-implementation per

258 in the stable ischemic heart disease cohort, bivalirudin use was associated with lower bleeding (diff

259 nt-elevation acute coronary syndrome cohort, bivalirudin use was associated with lower bleeding (diff

260 , and strategies such as use of risk scores, bivalirudin, vascular closure devices and radial access

261 phy) trial, which assigned 2,218 patients to bivalirudin versus heparin +/- GPI before primary PCI.

262 outcomes of procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin +/- GPI for primary PCI, give

263 ant differences in cerebral embolization for bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation during TAVR.

264 Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority beca

265 9, 2014) for randomised trials that assessed bivalirudin versus heparin in patients planned for PCI.

266 Randomization to bivalirudin versus heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa

267 We investigated the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa

268 Treatment with bivalirudin versus heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa

269 In the largest comparative analysis of bivalirudin versus UFH for non-ST-segment-elevation myoc

270 ts undergoing primary PCI were randomized to bivalirudin versus UFH+GPI.

271 randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the pro

272 The use of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin monotherapy in

273 Bivalirudin was associated with a dramatically reduced r

274 Use of bivalirudin was associated with fewer transfusions (2.8%

275 Bivalirudin was associated with higher rates of early ST

276 on with worsening renal function, but use of bivalirudin was associated with less bleeding across the

277 Bivalirudin was associated with less bleeding irrespecti

278 ent-elevation myocardial infarction to date, bivalirudin was associated with lower in-hospital bleedi

279 Bivalirudin was associated with lower proportions of the

280 Bivalirudin was associated with lower rates of hemorrhag

281 At 1-year follow-up, bivalirudin was associated with significantly lower rate

282 , more than half the bleeding reduction with bivalirudin was because of the lower use of GPIs (risk d

283 The probability of receiving bivalirudin was estimated using individual and hospital

284 Bivalirudin was more frequently used in US patients (56.

285 for major bleeding and other adverse events, bivalirudin was still associated with a 43% reduction in

286 s of suppression of adverse ischemic events, bivalirudin was superior to heparin plus a GPI in terms

287 A model therapeutic peptide, bivalirudin, was conjugated to the amine-reactive hydrog

288 l PCI registry, vascular closure devices and bivalirudin were associated with significantly lower ble

289 The bivalent parenteral DTIs hirudin and bivalirudin were based on the observation that the saliv

290 Bleeding reductions with bivalirudin were largest for transfemoral PCI (GPI-adjus

291 Patients treated with bivalirudin were older, had a lower glomerular filtratio

292 ivalirudin, or vascular closure devices plus bivalirudin were used in 35%, 24%, 23%, and 18% of patie

293 ein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (1.1%) compared with bivalirudin with or without IIb/IIIa inhibitors (1.6% an

294 rin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors or bivalirudin with or without IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and is

295 To compare bivalirudin with UFH, propensity score matching and inst

296 ention Outcomes)-3 randomized trial compared bivalirudin with unfractionated heparin in patients unde

297 Bivalirudin, with selective use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb

298 would reduce ischaemic events compared with bivalirudin, without increasing bleeding.

299 We hypothesized that bivalirudin would be associated with less in-hospital po

300 Systematic use of heparin rather than bivalirudin would reduce drug costs substantially.