Efficacy and safety of low-dose heparin in hemodialysis

Toward acid- and heparin-free dialysis: the regional anticoagulation approach

Background

In chronic intermittent hemodialysis, heparin is the standard anticoagulant as is the use of acid-containing dialysate. Regional anticoagulation (RA) with a calcium-free, citrate-containing dialysate has been developed. We compared RA using a calcium-free, citrate-free dialysate, routinely used in our center, versus systemic heparinization.

Methods

In a retrospective, observational, single-center, crossover study, we examined 15 patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis who were at high risk of bleeding and temporarily unable to use heparin. These patients received temporary treatment with RA involving calcium-free and citrate-free dialysate. We compared the dialysis session success rates during two distinct periods: standard heparinization and RA procedure with a calcium-free and citrate-free dialysate.

Results

In our study of 15 patients on chronic hemodialysis which compared 30 RA sessions versus 28 heparin-based anticoagulation session, we observed a 100% success rate with a median session duration of 240 min in both RA and heparin groups. No early extracorporeal circulation (ECC) loss was reported. However, we noted significant differences in the post-dialysis ECC thrombosis scores, with higher Global Thrombosis Index (GTI) and higher membrane coagulation scores in the RA group (P < .007 and P < .02, respectively). No hypocalcaemia or hypercalcemia symptoms occurred. Median post-filter ionized calcium levels were 0.32 (0.29-0.39) mmol/L at 30 min and median patient ionized calcium levels was 1.19 (1.135-1.28) mmol/L at 60 min. No significant difference in per-dialysis arterial blood pressure was observed between groups.

Conclusion

Our study evaluated the RA approach using a calcium-free, citrate-free acetate dialysate in a chronic hemodialysis center and found it effective. Although an acid-free dialysate was not used in this study, our findings suggest it could be the next frontier in the evolution of advanced dialysis techniques.

Avoiding Systemic Heparinization During Hemodialysis: How the Dialysis Setup Might Help

Heparin is the most widely used anticoagulant for maintaining patency of the extracorporeal blood circuit during intermittent hemodialysis. Inadvertently, this leads to systemic heparinization of the patient. Repeated intermittent heparinization during hemodialysis has been associated with increased bleeding risks and metabolic and immunologic effects. Alternative strategies for minimizing systemic anticoagulation encompass dilution methods, regional citrate anticoagulation, priming of the extracorporeal circuit, and modifications to dialyzer membranes and dialysate composition. The effectiveness of these alternatives in maintaining patency of the extracorporeal circuit varies substantially. Although most studies have focused on particular changes in the hemodialysis setup, several combined interventions for adapting the hemodialysis setup are now being studied. This narrative review aims to present an overview of the current landscape of hemodialysis setup strategies aimed at limiting or avoiding systemic anticoagulation during treatment. Additionally, this review intends to shed light on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that contribute to variations observed in reported outcomes.

How to Ensure Patency of the Extracorporeal Circuit in Hemodialysis: Global Perspectives

An adequate knowledge of anticoagulants used to prevent clotting in the extracorporeal circuit is crucial to provide optimal hemodialysis. Drugs can potentially prevent extracorporeal circuit clotting, but administration, half-life, and potential side effects differ. However, there is a lack of concise recommendations to guide anticoagulation and to avoid side effects. Because of the development of newer anticoagulant agents, direct thrombin inhibitors, and heparinoids, some of the side effects related to heparin may be overcome, but a deeper knowledge of these newer drugs is necessary. Moreover, types of heparin used, routes of administration, and health care economics vary around the world. We performed an extensive review of the literature, and the present article focuses on available anticoagulant drugs, exploring doses, side effects, particular use in hemodialysis, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic properties, and use in special situations. Classical anticoagulants are still the standard of anticoagulation, but many questions remain unanswered; for example, is there real superiority of one treatment over another in terms of efficacy, safety, and health care economics? Anticoagulant protocols for hemodialysis need to be standardized and further studies performed to answer all of these questions.

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.

Risk for excessive anticoagulation during hemodialysis is associated with type of vascular access and bedside coagulation testing: Results of a cross-sectional study

Background

Recommendations and practice patterns for heparin dosing during hemodialysis show substantial heterogeneity and are scantly supported by evidence. This study assessed the variability in unfractionated heparin (UFH) dosing during hemodialysis and its clinical and biological anticoagulatory effects, and identified explanatory factors of heparin dosing.

Methods

Cross-sectional study assessing UFH dosing, coagulation tests - activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and activated clotting time (ACT) before dialysis start, 1 h after start and at treatment end (4 h) - and measurement of residual blood compartment volume of used dialyzers.

Results

101 patients, 58% male, with a median dialysis vintage of 33 (6-71) months received hemodialysis using a total UFH dose of 9,306 ± 4,079 (range 3,000-23,050) IU/session. Use of a dialysis catheter (n = 56, 55%) was associated with a 1.4 times higher UFH dose (p < 0.001) irrespective of prior access function. aPTT increased significantly more than ACT both 1 h and 4 h after dialysis start, independent of the dialysis access used. 53% of patients with catheter access and ACT ratio < 1.5, 1 h after dialysis start had simultaneous aPTT ratios > 2.5. Similar findings were present at 1 h for patients with AVF/AVG and at dialysis end for catheter use. No clinically significant clotting of the extracorporeal circuit was noted during the studied sessions. Dialyzer's blood compartment volume was reduced with a median of 9% (6-20%) without significant effect of UFH dose, aPTT or ACT measurements and vascular access type.

Conclusion

UFH dose adaptations based on ACT measurements frequently result in excessive anticoagulation according to aPTT results. Higher doses of UFH are used in patients with hemodialysis catheters without evidence that this reduces dialyzer clotting.

Heparin locks with low and high concentration in haemodialysis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

There is no evidence-based consensus on the optimal concentration for heparin locks; several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the concentration of heparin locks, yet the results remain inconsistent. We aimed to assess heparin locks with low and high concentration in haemodialysis patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs focusing on the concentration in heparin locks. Studies were identified by searching PUBMED, EMBASE, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases (from inception to 15 March 2020). Summary risk ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence interval were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 370 patients with four RCTs were included. Heparin locks with 1000 U/ml could significantly reduce the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) compared with 5000 U/ml. No significant differences were seen in the occurrence of catheter-related thrombosis, the length of catheter stay, the rates of bleeding and catheter occlusions between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower concentrations in heparin lock are optimal for shortening APTT in haemodialysis patients; further studies are needed to elucidate the role of heparin concentration in the lock practice.

Anticoagulation in hemodialysis: A narrative review

Systemic anticoagulation in maintenance hemodialysis (HD) has historically been considered necessary to maintain the extracorporeal circuit (ECC) and preserve dialysis efficiency. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the most commonly used anticoagulant due to low cost and staff familiarity. Despite widespread use, there is little standardization of heparin dosing protocols in the United States. Although the complication rates with UFH are low for the general population, certain contraindications have led to exploration in alternative anticoagulants in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Here we review the current evidence regarding heparin dosing protocols, complications associated with heparin use, and discuss alternatives to UFH including anticoagulant-free routine HD.

Prevalence, associated factors and cardiocerebral vascular prognosis of anaemia among patients on chronic haemodialysis in South Guangdong, China

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence, associated factors and cardiocerebral vascular prognosis of anaemia in patients undergoing haemodialysis.

METHODS

This multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study included patients on maintenance haemodialysis in South Guangdong, China. Anaemia in haemodialysis was defined as haemoglobin (Hb) <90 g/l. A proportion of patients were enrolled in a follow-up of the cardiocerebral vascular prognosis.

RESULTS

A total of 1161 patients were enrolled and 938 were followed-up for cardiocerebral vascular events. Of 1161 patients, 250 (21.5%) had anaemia and 524 (45.1%) had an Hb level of 100-120 g/l. Adjusted multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that frequency of dialysis ≤ twice weekly, hypoalbuminaemia and use of unfractionated heparin were independent factors associated with anaemia. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis for no myocardial infarction was 100%, 100%, 100% and 100% after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, respectively, in patients with Hb < 90 g/l; compared with 97%, 95%, 93% and 93%, respectively, in patients with Hb ≥ 130 g/l. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression demonstrated that Hb ≥ 130 g/l was an independent risk factor for myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSION

Anaemia is highly prevalent among patients undergoing haemodialysis in South Guangdong and requires careful management.

Rare heparin induced thrombocytopenia type I reaction in a hemodialysis patient: Case report

RATIONALE

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a common antibody-mediated adverse reaction that occurs after heparin exposure. However, few case reports exist regarding nonantibody-mediated HIT.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSES

An 81-year-old female diagnosed with rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis (RPGN) presented with atypical presentation of non antibody-meditated HIT after using heparin during hemodialysis.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

Patient was initiated on hemodialysis and presented with thrombocytopenia following administration of heparin during dialysis. After ruling out all other causes of thrombocytopenia, HIT was suspected to be the cause. Patient's 4Ts score was 6 points, and Naranjo adverse drug reaction probability scale was a score of 10. However, enzyme-linked immunoassay for platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies was negative, indicating non-antibody mediated HIT. Patient eventually continued hemodialysis without heparin.

LESSONS

This patient case presented a rare presentation of HIT type I reaction due to heparin and demonstrated the importance of timely recognition of thrombocytopenia, appropriate diagnosis and management, and possible existence of a new atypical or subtype of HIT reaction.