Safety and Efficacy of Single Bolus Anticoagulation with Enoxaparin for Chronic Hemodialysis. Results of an Open-Label Post-Certification Study

Efficacy and safety of postoperative single-dose anticoagulant treatment in preventing venous thromboembolism after revision hip arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to determine the efficacy and safety of postoperative single-dose anticoagulant treatment in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) after revision THA, in comparison with a multiple-dose chemoprophylaxis protocol.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared 295 patients undergoing revision THA who received multiple-dose chemoprophylaxis protocol (40 mg low-molecular-weight heparin once and oral rivaroxaban for 10 days) or single-dose chemoprophylaxis protocol (40 mg low-molecular-weight heparin once) for VTE. The patients in both groups performed active lower limb exercises. Each group was further stratified into subgroups based on the aetiology of revision. The incidence of VTE, wound complications within three months, hidden blood loss (HBL), transfusion rate, and surgical drainage duration were recorded.

RESULTS

The incidence rates of VTE (P = 0.870) did not differ between the two prophylaxis protocols. However, significant differences were observed in wound complications within three months (P = 0.002), HBL (P = 0.015), transfusion rate (P = 0.028). Surgical drainage duration was also shorter in the single-dose chemoprophylaxis group (P = 0.0023). In the subgroup analysis, the use of single-dose chemoprophylaxis protocol cannot significantly reduce HBL and transfusion rate after septic revision THA. The use of multiple-dose chemoprophylaxis protocol (OR = 2.89, P = 0.002) and high BMI (OR = 1.09, P = 0.037) were independent risk factors of wound complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose chemoprophylaxis protocol effectively and safely prevented VTE after revision THA compared with multiple-dose chemoprophylaxis protocol. The effect in reducing HBL and postoperative transfusion rate was limited in septic revision.

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.

Plasma levels of enoxaparin oligosaccharides, antifactor-Xa and thrombin generation in patients undergoing haemodialysis

: Low molecular weight heparins are used during haemodialysis for thromboprophylaxis of the dialysis circuit, with plasma antifactor-Xa (anti-Xa) activity used as a surrogate measure for effective anticoagulation. However, this pharmacokinetic parameter does not always correlate with pharmacodynamic effects in patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between actual plasma levels of the low molecular weight heparins enoxaparin, anti-Xa activity, and global coagulation measurement of thrombin generation during haemodialysis. Blood was analysed from 16 adult patients with end-stage kidney disease at 0, 2, 4 h, and at completion of 31 dialysis sessions where single fixed doses of 20 (n = 3), 40 (n = 16), 60 (n = 6), or 80 (n = 6) mg of enoxaparin (equating to 0.23-1.07 mg/kg) were used as thromboprophylaxis. Plasma enoxaparin oligosaccharides [degree of polymerization (dp)6-dp16] were measured by high-performance size exclusion chromatography, anti-Xa activity by colourimetric assay, and thrombin generation by calibrated automated thrombogram. Plasma enoxaparin fragments were undetectable at the beginning of each dialysis, peaked at 2 h to levels that correlated with dose (r = 0.68, P < 0.001) then remained relatively stable. In contrast, therapeutic anti-Xa levels achieved at 2 h in 18 cases (58%) quickly dropped to only six cases (19%) at the end of dialysis, by which time thrombin generation had also recovered in 81% of patients. Statistical modelling revealed a threshold value of anti-Xa at 0.53 IU/ml that supressed thrombin generation to 15.28% of baseline (P < 0.001). Despite loss of anticoagulant activity in the majority of patients, plasma levels of enoxaparin oligosaccharides remained detectable and relatively unchanged throughout dialysis.

Effect of Heparin on Coagulation Tests: A Comparison of Continuous and Bolus Infusion in Haemodialysis Patients

INTRODUCTION

Haemodialysis is one of the most conventional treatments of chronic renal failure. The risk of clot formation is high during haemodialysis due to regular contact of blood with the surfaces of foreign objects such as catheters, dialyzers' membrane, and other materials used for dialysis. Therefore, to prevent clot formation during haemodialysis, the dialysis system requires anticoagulation; this is usually done by heparin.

AIM

The present study aimed to compare two heparinization methods and determine the proper impacts of these methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this quasi-experimental study, 80 haemodialysis patients covered by the dialysis center of Amir-al-momenin Hospital of Zabol were studied in two 40-member groups of heparin therapy methods of bolus injection and continuous infusion. PT and PTT were measured in blood samples collected from all patients before starting haemodialysis. The first group received 3000 units of heparin once the haemodialysis machine started to work and 2000 units of heparin two hours later as bolus injection. In the second group, 1500 units of heparin was injected at the start of dialysis after then, 5000 units of heparin (one mL) were mixed with 11 mL of distilled water and infused using a heparin injection pump up to half an hour before the end of dialysis. At 30 minutes after starting dialysis and at the end of 4 hours of haemodialysis, PT and PTT were measured and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

According to the results, the mean partial thromboplastin time in the bolus and continuous heparin-receiving group was 41.75±6.29 and 37.90±4.77, respectively, which was statistically significant (p=0.036). But PT was 14.45±1.82 in the bolus heparin group and 13.95±1.39 in the continuous heparin group, which was not significant according to the results of independent t-test (p=0.336).

CONCLUSION

The results indicated a statistically significant difference between the bolus heparin injection and the continuous heparin infusion groups in terms of coagulation tests in haemodialysis patients (p=0.036). Therefore, given the effects of heparin on coagulation, it was more effective in the bolus heparin group than the continuous infusion group. It is recommended to use the bolus method for heparin therapy during haemodialysis.

Where and When To Inject Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Hemodiafiltration? A Cross Over Randomised Trial

Background and Objective

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are small enough to pass large pore dialysis membranes. Removal of LMWH if injected before the start of the session is possible during high-flux dialysis and hemodiafiltration. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal mode (place and time) of tinzaparin administration during postdilution hemodiafiltration.

Study Design, Setting, Patients

In 13 chronic hemodiafiltration patients, 3 approaches of injection were compared in a randomised cross over trial: i) before the start of the session at the inlet blood line filled with rinsing solution (IN₀), ii) 5 min after the start at the inlet line filled with blood (IN₅) and iii) before the start of the session at the outlet blood line (OUT₀). Anti-Xa activity, thrombin generation, visual clotting score and reduction ratios of urea and beta2microglobulin were measured.

Results

Anti-Xa activity was lower with IN₀ compared with IN5 and OUT₀, and also more thrombin generation was observed with IN₀. No differences were observed in visual clotting scores and no clinically relevant differences were observed in solute reduction ratio. An anti-Xa of 0.3 IU/mL was discriminative for thrombin generation. Anti-Xa levels below 0.3 IU/mL at the end of the session were associated with worse clotting scores and lower reduction ratio of urea and beta2microglobulin.

Conclusions

Injection of tinzaparin at the inlet line before the start of postdilution hemodiafiltration is associated with loss of anticoagulant activity and can therefore not be recommended. Additionally, we found that an anti-Xa above 0.3 IU/mL at the end of the session is associated with less clotting and higher dialysis adequacy.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00756145

Anticoagulation in Chronic Hemodialysis: Progress Toward an Optimal Approach

Appropriate anticoagulation for hemodialysis (HD) requires a subtle balance between under- and over-heparinization to prevent extracorporeal circuit (ECC) clotting and bleeding, respectively. We discuss five key issues relating to anticoagulation therapy for chronic HD in adults following a review of relevant literature published since 2002: (i) options for standardization of anticoagulation in HD settings. The major nephrology societies have issued low evidence level recommendations on this subject. Interventional studies have generally investigated novel low-molecular weight heparins and provided data on safety of dosing regimens that cannot readily be extrapolated to clinical practice; (ii) identification of clinical and biological parameters to aid individualization of anticoagulation treatment. We find that use of clinical and biological monitoring of anticoagulation during HD sessions is currently not clearly defined in routine clinical practice; (iii) role of ECC elements (dialysis membrane and blood lines), dialysis modalities, and blood flow in clotting development; (iv) options to reduce or suppress systemic heparinization during HD sessions. Alternative strategies have been investigated, especially when the routine mode of anticoagulation was not suitable in patients at high risk of bleeding or was contraindicated; (v) optimization of anticoagulation therapy for the individual patient. We conclude by proposing a standardized approach to deliver anticoagulation treatment for HD based on an individualized prescription prepared according to the patient's profile and needs.

A multi-center, prospective, open-label, 8-week study of certoparin for anticoagulation during maintenance hemodialysis--the membrane study

Background

Adequate anticoagulation is prerequisite for effective hemodialysis to prevent clotting in the extracorporeal circuit. We aimed providing first data on the efficacy and safety of the low-molecular-weight heparin certoparin in this setting.

Methods

Multicenter, open-label, 8-week trial. Patients received a single dose of 3,000 IU certoparin i.v. with additional titration steps of 600 IU and/or continuous infusion if necessary.

Results

120 patients were screened, 109 enrolled (median age 71; range 26–90 years) and 106 available for efficacy analyses. The percentage of unsatisfactory dialysis results at 8 weeks due to clotting or bleeding, was 1.9% (n = 2/106; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23–6.65%); no major bleeding. 1.9% had moderate/severe clotting in the lines/bubble catcher and 2.8% in the dialyser at week 8. 15.7 ± 14.3% of the dialysis filters’ visual surface area was showing redness. In subgroups of patients receiving median doses of 3000 ± 0, 3000 (2400–6000) and 4200 (3000–6600) IU, plasma aXa levels at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks were 0.24 [95%CI 0.21–0.27], 0.33 [0.27–0.40] and 0.38 [0.33–0.45] aXa IU/ml at 2 h. C_48h was 0.01 [0.01–0.02] aXa IU at all visits. At baseline and 4 weeks AUC_0-48h was 2.66 [2.19–3.24] and 3.66 [3.00–4.45] aXa IU*h/ml. In 3.0% of dialyses (n = 83/2724) prolonged fistula compression times were documented. Eight patients (7.34%) had at least one episode of minor bleeding. 4) 85.3% of patients had any adverse event, 9.2% were serious without suspected drug relation; and in 32 patients a drug-relation was suspected.

Conclusions

Certoparin appears effective and safe for anticoagulation in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis.

HEMATOLOGY: ISSUES IN THE DIALYSIS PATIENT: The Safety of Heparins in End-Stage Renal Disease

In patients on chronic dialysis, unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the most commonly used agent for anticoagulation of the hemodialysis extracorporeal circuit, for hemodialysis catheter "locking" between dialysis treatments, and for nondialysis indications such as venous thromboembolic disease, peripheral vascular disease, and acute coronary artery disease. Potentially serious complications of UFH, such as hemorrhage, osteoporosis, and thrombocytopenia, have led to consideration of other options for anticoagulation, including low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs). LMWH can be used for anticoagulation of the hemodialysis circuit, but whether this has significant benefit compared to UFH remains to be proven. Because of the somewhat unpredictable risk of severe bleeding complications when LMWH is used for other indications in dialysis patients, UFH rather than LMWH is preferred for treatment of thromboembolic disease in these patients. DTIs have been used for anticoagulation in dialysis patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), with argatroban being the preferred agent if heparin-free hemodialysis cannot be performed. UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant in the vast majority of dialysis patients requiring systemic anticoagulation and for anticoagulation of the extracorporeal hemodialysis circuit.