ライフサイエンスコーパス: bivalirudin

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

2 nd whether it interacted with the benefit of bivalirudin.

3 nts who received or did not receive post-PCI bivalirudin.

4 d to identify the nonhematologic benefits of bivalirudin.

5 tality may explain the survival benefit with bivalirudin.

6 icated in the survival benefit observed with bivalirudin.

7 isk for bleeding are least likely to receive bivalirudin.

8 cute coronary syndrome patients treated with bivalirudin.

9 d ischaemic events or bleeding compared with bivalirudin.

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

11 after percutaneous coronary intervention) or bivalirudin.

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

13 Among 3,610 patients assigned to bivalirudin, 1,799 were randomized to receive and 1,811

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 cations are significantly less frequent with bivalirudin alone.

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

33 Bivalirudin also reduced the risk of major bleeding (2.6

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

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

36 Bivalirudin and fondaparinux have been used to treat HIT

37 Bivalirudin and fondaparinux require further study befor

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

39 ifferences were found in the elderly between bivalirudin and heparin monotherapy regarding the primar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

54 mary percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin anticoagulation.

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

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

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

58 Bivalirudin, as compared with heparin and glycoprotein I

59 Bivalirudin, as compared with the control intervention,

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

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

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

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

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

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

66 Procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin (BIV), trans-radial intervention (TRI), and

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

68 ing warfarin and starting heparin/enoxaparin/bivalirudin bridge was most common (65% vs 54%).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91 Substituting bivalirudin for heparin conferred a tradeoff between ble

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

93 Treatment with bivalirudin glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors significant

94 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.

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

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

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

98 751 (83%) of 905 patients in the bivalirudin group and 740 (82%) of 907 patients in the h

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

110 Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to

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

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

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

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

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

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

117 Bivalirudin has been associated with reduced bleeding an

118 Bivalirudin has been shown to reduce bleeding events in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

126 Patients treated with bivalirudin in randomized clinical trials of percutaneou

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

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

129 Bivalirudin increased the risk of stent thrombosis (risk

130 The value of prolonged bivalirudin infusion after percutaneous coronary interve

131 oint did not differ with or without post-PCI bivalirudin infusion but a post-PCI full dose was associ

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

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

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

135 receive and 1,811 not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion.

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

137 vents averted compared with IV argatroban or bivalirudin infusions.

138 Bivalirudin is a synthetic anticoagulant drug sometimes

139 Bivalirudin is an alternative to heparin in patients und

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

141 Bivalirudin is commonly administered alone to clopidogre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

154 Bivalirudin monotherapy safely reduces major bleeding in

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

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

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

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

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

160 ention with either unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin monotherapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

170 rocedural characteristics were equal between bivalirudin (n=799) and heparin (n=793) treated patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

177 with an anticoagulation strategy with either bivalirudin or heparin as monotherapy in this patient gr

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

179 he trial, patients were randomized to either bivalirudin or heparin monotherapy during percutaneous c

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

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

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

183 88 international sites, randomized to either bivalirudin or heparin+/-a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

210 (2.5% bivalirudin monotherapy; P=0.005, 2.0% bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors; P=0.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

217 Bivalirudin reduces cardiac mortality in patients with S

218 fficacy and safety of a full or low post-PCI bivalirudin regimen in ACS patients with or without ST-s

219 However, full compared with low bivalirudin regimen remained associated with a significa

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

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

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

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

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

225 Bivalirudin significantly reduced the primary outcome co

226 Bivalirudin, started during transport for primary PCI, i

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

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

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

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

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

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

233 For bivalirudin, the incidence of the efficacy endpoint was

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

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

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

237 tality and cardiac mortality between WBC and bivalirudin therapy.

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

239 Therefore, we compared bivalirudin to heparin monotherapy in a contemporary coh

240 The MATRIX program assigned bivalirudin to patients without or with a post-PCI infus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

248 Bivalirudin use compared with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhi

249 Bivalirudin use during PCI has been shown to reduce blee

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

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

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

253 Bivalirudin use increased from 2009 to 2013 but declined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

262 Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority beca

263 9, 2014) for randomised trials that assessed bivalirudin versus heparin in patients planned for PCI.

264 5 years) from the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segm

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

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

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

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

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

270 The use of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin monotherapy in

271 Post-PCI full bivalirudin was administered in 612 (ST-segment elevatio

272 Bivalirudin was associated with a dramatically reduced r

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

274 Bivalirudin was associated with higher rates of early ST

275 Full post-PCI bivalirudin was associated with improved outcomes consis

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 patients underwent radial artery access, and bivalirudin was used in 4.6%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

294 strategies such as radial artery access and bivalirudin were used infrequently and use of bridging t

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.