leech therapy
The present paper described a rare and lethal adverse event following leech therapy. A 63-year-old man was referred to Nemazee Teaching Hospital (Shiraz, Iran) in December 2020 with a two-week history of progressive right lower extremity swelling, erythema, and ecchymosis. One week before symptom onset, he had undergone leech therapy on the lateral calf and upper thigh of the right lower extremity, administered by a traditional healer.
Physical examination revealed gangrene of the right leg and absence of all pulses. Color Doppler sonography of the leg and computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the thoracic aorta to the lower extremities revealed complete thrombosis of all right lower extremity arteries, extending to the right iliac artery and abdominal aorta. With a diagnosis of arterial occlusive disease and septic thrombophlebitis, the patient received intravenous antibiotics and anticoagulant therapy. Due to the ineffectiveness of medical treatments, a right lower extremity amputation was
performed.
The patient expired 5 days postoperatively due to septic shock and multiorgan failure.
The adverse effects of leech therapy include:
- Infection: Leeches can introduce bacteria like Aeromonas hydrophila into the wound, potentially causing infections
- Allergic reactions: Some people may be allergic to leech saliva, which can cause an allergic reaction
- Prolonged bleeding: Leeches inject an anticoagulant, which can lead to prolonged bleeding at the site of the bite
- Scarring: Leech bites can leave scars
- Anemia: In rare cases, excessive bleeding caused by leeches can lead to anemia
- Pain or discomfort at the site of the leech bite
- Swelling or redness around the bite area
- Itching or rash after the leech is removed
- Potential for transmission of diseases
- Psychological distress or anxiety related to the use of leeches
The effect of leech therapy consists mainly in the anticoagulation due to the hiriduin from the leech (it is also advocated for ‘detox’ [which is nonsense] and for pain [where the effect is too small to matter]). I would argue that this desired effect is achievable more safely by conventional means and that the risk/benefit balance of leech therapy is squarely negative.
In other words: don’t do it!
Hirudotherapy, also known as leech therapy, has been used to treat a wide range of disorders for thousands of years. It is also mentioned as a minimal invasive technique called Jalaukavacharana in the Sushruta Samhita, an ancient Sanskrit text of Ayurvedic medicine.
But a long history is a fallacious argument (appeal to tradition) when used to imply efficacy. So, does this treatment work?
A review located a total of 834 articles were found of which 89.8% were original articles. USA was the leading country with 280 publications, followed by UK, Germany and France (128, 101 and 41 items, respectively). The most productive countries regarding hirudotherapy were the UK (1.93), Slovenia (1.44), and Israel (1.32). The peak publication year for hirudotherapy literature was 2011 with 41 papers.
What does that tell us about the efficacy of leech therapy?
Nothing!
The authors of another review concluded that reached the following conclusion: ” Given the low number of reported adverse events, leech therapy may be a useful approach in treating this condition. Further high-quality RCTs are required for the conclusive judgment of its effectiveness and safety.”
Sounds good?
Not really!
The few clinical trials that were reviewed are mostly by one research group – and yes, you guessed it: it was also this group who published the review.
And anyway: why do they conclude that there is a low number of adverse events? Firstly, there is no reporting system for such events; so, a low number is next to meaningless. Secondly, there are several reports of adverse events. Here are three recent cases:
A 59-year-old woman was admitted to the emergency department with complaints of redness and swelling in both eyes and face. She had a long history of headache, therefore applied leech treatment occasionally. Swelling began on the face after the treatment of leech therapy. Vital signs were as follows; fever: 36.5°C, BP: 126/81 mmHg, heart rate: 84/min and sO2: 98%; respiratory rate: 12/min. In physical examination, GCS was 15, conscious, oriented cooperative. There was no lymphadenopathy in the palpation of the head and neck examination. Oropharynx was in natural appearance and no uvula edema. Facial palpation revealed redness, pain and heat rise. Other systemic findings were normal. Laboratory tests showed leukocytes: 11,000/mm3 (4,000-10,000/mm3), haemoglobin: 12.8 g/dL (12,00-14,00 g/dL) platelet: 271,000 (100,000-400,000/mm3) CRP: 3.45 mg/L (0-0.5mg/L). Other parameters were within normal limits. Computed tomography (CT) showed bilateral periorbital, frontal subcutaneous soft tissue oedema and lymphatic dilatations. She was hospitalized with the diagnosis of orbital cellulite due to leech therapy.
Anorectal sepsis usually presents with anal abscesses, which may evolve to become anorectal fistulas. Most of these cases are either of cryptoglandular origin, or they develop secondary to inflammatory bowel diseases. A 32-year-old male patient applied to our Proctology Unit with severe anal pain and swelling. Three days before admission, leeches were applied to the hemorrhoidal swellings in a medical center. The abscess was drained with appropriate unroofing and search for any compartments. The patient recovered rapidly. The abscess culture and microscopy revealed mix flora with predominant Escherichia coli. After 6 months, he has been symptom-free with perfect healing of the surgical site. We need to check up on possible handicaps in our modern patient care policies that divert people to such methods. Nevertheless, such alternative methods should be regarded as nonscientific and out of context unless their efficacy and safety are documented.
Pseudolymphoma, also known as Jessner’s lymphocytic infiltration, is a benign but usually chronic, T-cell infiltrating disease with erythematous papules and plaques usually seen on the skin of the face, neck, and back. The use of leech therapy also known as hirudotherapy has increased in recent years. Here, we report a 52-year-old male patient who had undergone hirudotherapy in his neck and developed infiltrating plaques after four months. A skin biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of Jessner’s lymphocytic infiltration. In parallel with the increasing use of hirudotherapy in recent years, the side-effect reports will likely to increase. Indications and contraindications of hirudotherapy, which is being used officially in hospitals, should be taken into consideration.
So, what do we make of this evidence?
I don’t know about you, but I am not likely to try or recommend leech therapy in a hurry.
