Hemodialysis Does Not Induce Detectable Activation of the Contact System of Coagulation

The Crosstalk between Nephropathy and Coagulation Disorder: Pathogenesis, Treatment, and Dilemmas

ABSTRACT

The interaction between the kidney and the coagulation system greatly affects each other because of the abundant vessel distribution and blood perfusion in the kidney. Clinically, the risks of complicated thrombosis and bleeding have become important concerns in the treatment of nephropathies, especially nephrotic syndrome, CKD, ESKD, and patients with nephropathy undergoing RRTs. Adverse effects of anticoagulant or procoagulant therapies in patients with nephropathy, especially anticoagulation-related nephropathy, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and bleeding, seriously worsen the prognosis of patients, which have become challenges for clinicians. Over the decades, the interaction between the kidney and the coagulation system has been widely studied. However, the effects of the kidney on the coagulation system have not been systematically investigated. Although some coagulation-related proteins and signaling pathways have been shown to improve coagulation abnormalities while avoiding additional kidney damage in certain kidney diseases, their potential as anticoagulation targets in nephropathy requires further investigation. Here, we review the progression of research on the crosstalk between the coagulation system and kidney diseases and systematically analyze the significance and shortcomings of previous studies to provide new sight into future research. In addition, we highlight the status of clinical treatment for coagulation disorder and nephropathy caused by each other, indicating guidance for the formulation of therapeutic strategies or drug development.

Detection and Scoring of Extracorporeal Circuit Clotting During Hemodialysis

Maintaining patency of the extracorporeal hemodialysis (HD) circuit is a prerequisite to perform HD. Unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparins are the most used anticoagulants in maintenance HD, but their administration comes with a major trade-off of bleeding complications. This narrative review article discusses technical factors impacting on HD circuit patency, such as tubings, dialyzer membranes, priming practices, and treatment settings. Strategies for monitoring extracorporeal circuit clotting during and after treatment are also reviewed, as these are essential tools for optimizing anticoagulation.

Laboratory Monitoring of Heparin Anticoagulation in Hemodialysis: Rationale and Strategies

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are commonly used to prevent clotting of the hemodialysis extracorporeal circuit and optimize hemodialysis adequacy. There is no consensus on the optimal dosing for UFH and LMWHs during hemodialysis. In clinical practice, semiquantitative clotting scoring of the dialyzer and venous chamber may help to guide UFH and LMWH dose adjustment. Laboratory monitoring has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes and is therefore not routinely indicated in most hemodialysis patients. It might, however, be considered in select patients, such as those with extremes of body weight or history of repeated clotting or bleeding. Methods for laboratory monitoring include the activated partial thromboplastin time, activated clotting time, and antifactor Xa assays for UFH and antifactor Xa assay for LMWHs. Target ranges for anticoagulation in hemodialysis have been suggested but not clearly defined. When utilizing these tests, issues such as availability, standardization, interfering factors, and interpretation must be considered. In this narrative review, we discuss the rationale and methods of monitoring anticoagulation in hemodialysis.

Effect of dialyzer geometry on coagulation activation in the extracorporeal circuit in maintenance hemodialysis patients: Prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The coagulation cascade is activated during hemodialysis (HD) due to interaction of blood with the dialysis circuit. There is a paucity of data on the effect of the physical structure of the dialyzers on coagulation activation during HD. We conducted this study to compare the effect of Helixone FX80 versus Platinum H4 dialyzers on coagulation activation during HD.

METHODS

Twenty patients on maintenance HD were enrolled in this randomized prospective crossover study. Each patient was dialyzed using Helixone FX80 and Platinum H4 dialyzers. Serum thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT) was measured before (T0h) and at the end (T4H) of HD.

RESULTS

The absolute changes of serum TAT were comparable with the two dialyzers (median [IQR]: 1.15 [0.65, 1.75] for Helixone FX80 vs. 1.15 [0.67, 2.05] for Platinum H4, p = 0.371).

CONCLUSION

Helixone FX80 and Platinum H4 dialyzers have similar effects on coagulation activation during HD.

Hemodialysis-Related Complement and Contact Pathway Activation and Cardiovascular Risk: A Narrative Review

Individuals receiving long-term hemodialysis are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Traditional cardiovascular risk factors do not fully explain the high CVD risk in this population. During hemodialysis, blood interacts with the biomaterials of the hemodialysis circuit. This interaction can activate the complement system and the factor XII-driven contact system. FXII activation triggers both the intrinsic pathway of coagulation and the kallikrein-kinin pathway, resulting in thrombin and bradykinin production, respectively. The complement system plays a key role in the innate immune response, but also contributes to the pathogenesis of numerous disease states. Components of the complement pathway, including mannose binding lectin and C3, are associated with CVD risk in people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Both the complement system and the factor XII-driven contact coagulation system mediate proinflammatory and procoagulant responses that could contribute to or accelerate CVD in hemodialysis recipents. This review summarizes what is already known about hemodialysis-mediated activation of the complement system and in particular the coagulation contact system, emphasizing the potential role these systems play in the identification of new biomarkers for CVD risk stratification and the development of potential therapeutic targets or innovative therapies that decrease CVD risk in ESKD patients.

Dialyzer Performance During Hemodialysis Without Systemic Anticoagulation Using a Heparin-Grafted Dialyzer Combined With a Citrate-Enriched Dialysate: Results of the Randomized Crossover Noninferiority EvoCit Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The EvoCit study was designed to evaluate performance of a heparin-grafted dialyzer during hemodialysis with and without systemic anticoagulation.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial. Noninferiority was defined as a difference of≤10% for the primary outcome.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Single hemodialysis center; 26 prevalent patients treated with 617 hemodialysis sessions.

INTERVENTIONS

Hemodialysis using a heparin-grafted dialyzer combined with a 1.0mmol/L citrate-enriched dialysate ("EvoCit") without systemic anticoagulation compared with hemodialysis performed with a heparin-grafted dialyzer with systemic heparin ("EvoHep"). Patients were randomly allocated to a first period of 4 weeks and crossed over to the alternative strategy for a second period of 4 weeks.

OUTCOMES

The primary end point was the difference in Kt/V_urea between EvoCit and EvoHep. Secondary end points were urea reduction ratio, middle molecule removal, treatment time, thrombin generation, and reduction in dialyzer blood compartment volume.

RESULTS

The estimated difference in Kt/V_urea between EvoCit and EvoHep was-0.03 (95% CI, -0.06 to-0.007), establishing noninferiority with mean Kt/V_urea of 1.47±0.05 (SE) for EvoCit and 1.50±0.05 for EvoHep. Noninferiority was also established for reduction ratios of urea and β₂-microglobulin. Premature discontinuation of dialysis was required for 4.2% of sessions among 6 patients during EvoCit and no sessions during EvoHep. Effective treatment time was 236±5 minutes for EvoCit and 238±1 minutes for EvoHep. Thrombin generation was increased and there was greater reduction in dialyzer blood compartment volume after treatments with EvoCit compared with EvoHep.

LIMITATIONS

The effects of avoiding systemic anticoagulation on clinical outcomes were not evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

EvoCit is noninferior to EvoHep with respect to solute clearance but results in a greater number of shortened treatments, more membrane clotting, and greater thrombin generation TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT03887468.

Performance and Hemocompatibility of a Novel Polysulfone Dialyzer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

High-flux dialyzers effectively remove uremic toxins, are hemocompatible to minimize intradialytic humoral and cellular stimulation, and have long-term effects on patient outcomes. A new dialyzer with a modified membrane surface has been tested for performance and hemocompatibility.

Methods

This multicenter, prospective, randomized, crossover study involved the application of the new polysulfone-based FX CorAL 600 (Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany), the polyarylethersulfone-based Polyflux 170H (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL), and the cellulose triacetate–based SureFlux 17UX (Nipro Medical Europe, Mechelen, Belgium), for 1 week each, to assess the noninferiority of the FX CorAL 600’s removal rate of β2-microglobulin. Performance was assessed by removal rate and clearance of small- and medium-sized molecules. Hemocompatibility was assessed through markers of complement, cell activation, contact activation, and coagulation.

Results

Of 70 patients, 58 composed the intention-to-treat population. The FX CorAL 600’s removal rate of β2-microglobulin was noninferior to both comparators (P<0.001 versus SureFlux 17UX; P=0.0006 versus Polyflux 170H), and superior to the SureFlux 17UX. The activation of C3a and C5a with FX CorAL 600 was significantly lower 15 minutes after treatment start than with SureFlux 17UX. The activation of sC5b-9 with FX CorAL 600 was significantly lower over the whole treatment than with SureFlux 17UX, and lower after 60 minutes than with the Polyflux 170H. The treatments with FX CorAL 600 were well tolerated.

Conclusions

FX CorAL 600 efficiently removed small- and medium-sized molecules, showed a favorable hemocompatibility profile, and was associated with a low frequency of adverse events in this study, with a limited patient number and follow-up time. Further studies, with longer observation times, are warranted to provide further evidence supporting the use of the new dialyzer in a wide range of therapeutic options, and for long-term treatment of patients on hemodialysis, to minimize the potential effects on inflammatory processes.