Coronary interventions

Myocardial damage after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction by use of bivalirudin or heparin: a DANAMI-3 substudy

EuroIntervention 2020;15:e1602-e1604. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00623

Mikkel Schoos
Mikkel M. Schoos1, MD, PhD; Lars Nepper-Christensen2, MD; Kiril Aleksov Ahtarovski2, MD, PhD; Kasper Kyhl2, MD, PhD; Christoffer Göransson2, MD; Lene Holmvang1, MD, MDSc; Henning Kelbæk1, MD, MDSc; Steffen Helqvist2, DM, MDSc; Dan Eik Høfsten2, DM, PhD; Lars Køber2, MD, PhD, MDSc; Niels Vejlstrup2, MD, PhD; Jacob Lønborg2; Thomas Engstrøm2, MD, MDSc, PhD
1. Department of Cardiology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark; 2. Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark


The benefits of bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain controversial. Bivalirudin rather than UFH plus a routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor (GPI) has been shown to improve overall and cardiac survival and reduce bleeding complications in patients undergoing primary PCI. Several trials comparing bivalirudin and UFH±GPI have since questioned this survival advantage and created controversy related to bivalirudin-associated improved bleeding outcome and the risk of acute stent thrombosis. Recently, the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in myocardial infarction during PCI trial reported no differences in myocardial infarction, major ...

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?

No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from

Coronary interventionsSTEMI
Read next article
Ticagrelor monotherapy beyond one month after PCI in ACS or stable CAD in elderly patients: a pre-specified analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial

Latest news