↓ Skip to main content

Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
18 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
235 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
244 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
228 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1706443
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Erlinge, Elmir Omerovic, Ole Fröbert, Rikard Linder, Mikael Danielewicz, Mehmet Hamid, Eva Swahn, Loghman Henareh, Henrik Wagner, Peter Hårdhammar, Iwar Sjögren, Jason Stewart, Per Grimfjärd, Jens Jensen, Mikael Aasa, Lotta Robertsson, Pontus Lindroos, Jan Haupt, Helena Wikström, Anders Ulvenstam, Pallonji Bhiladvala, Bo Lindvall, Anders Lundin, Tim Tödt, Dan Ioanes, Truls Råmunddal, Thomas Kellerth, Leszek Zagozdzon, Matthias Götberg, Jonas Andersson, Oskar Angerås, Ollie Östlund, Bo Lagerqvist, Claes Held, Lars Wallentin, Fredrik Scherstén, Peter Eriksson, Sasha Koul, Stefan James

Abstract

Background The comparative efficacy of various anticoagulation strategies has not been clearly established in patients with acute myocardial infarction who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to current practice, which includes the use of radial-artery access for PCI and administration of potent P2Y12 inhibitors without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, registry-based, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) who were undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin or heparin during PCI, which was performed predominantly with the use of radial-artery access. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding during 180 days of follow-up. Results A total of 6006 patients (3005 with STEMI and 3001 with NSTEMI) were enrolled in the trial. At 180 days, a primary end-point event had occurred in 12.3% of the patients (369 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group and in 12.8% (383 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.10; P=0.54). The results were consistent between patients with STEMI and those with NSTEMI and across other major subgroups. Myocardial infarction occurred in 2.0% of the patients in the bivalirudin group and in 2.4% in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.19; P=0.33), major bleeding in 8.6% and 8.6%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.19; P=0.98), definite stent thrombosis in 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.10; P=0.09), and death in 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.41; P=0.76). Conclusions Among patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction, the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding was not lower among those who received bivalirudin than among those who received heparin monotherapy. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu number, 2012-005260-10 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02311231 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 235 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 228 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 29 13%
Researcher 29 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Student > Master 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 66 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 104 46%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 85 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 293. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2023.
All research outputs
#120,865
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#2,852
of 32,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,638
of 324,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#54
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,627 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.