Clinical Safety and Anticoagulation Efficacy of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients: A Single Medical Center Experience

Anticoagulation for people receiving long-term haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis (HD) requires safe and effective anticoagulation to prevent clot formation within the extracorporeal circuit during dialysis treatments to enable adequate dialysis and minimise adverse events, including major bleeding. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may provide a more predictable dose, reliable anticoagulant effects and be simpler to administer than unfractionated heparin (UFH) for HD anticoagulation, but may accumulate in the kidneys and lead to bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation strategies (including both heparin and non-heparin drugs) for long-term HD in people with kidney failure. Any intervention preventing clotting within the extracorporeal circuit without establishing anticoagulation within the patient, such as regional citrate, citrate enriched dialysate, heparin-coated dialysers, pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (HDF), and saline flushes were also included.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to November 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled studies (quasi-RCTs) evaluating anticoagulant agents administered during HD treatment in adults and children with kidney failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. Treatment effects were estimated using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 113 studies randomising 4535 participants. The risk of bias in each study was adjudicated as high or unclear for most risk domains. Compared to UFH, LMWH had uncertain effects on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis (3 studies, 91 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.42; I2 = 8%; low certainty evidence), while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate anticoagulation may lower the risk of minor bleeding compared to UFH (2 studies, 82 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). No studies reported data comparing regional citrate to UFH on risks of extracorporeal circuit thrombosis and major bleeding. The effects of very LMWH, danaparoid, prostacyclin, direct thrombin inhibitors, factor XI inhibitors or heparin-grafted membranes were uncertain due to insufficient data. The effects of different LMWH, different doses of LMWH, and the administration of LMWH anticoagulants using inlet versus outlet bloodline or bolus versus infusion were uncertain. Evidence to compare citrate to another citrate or control was scant. The effects of UFH compared to no anticoagulant therapy or different doses of UFH were uncertain. Death, dialysis vascular access outcomes, blood transfusions, measures of anticoagulation effect, and costs of interventions were rarely reported. No studies evaluated the effects of treatment on non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospital admissions. Adverse events were inconsistently and rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulant strategies, including UFH and LMWH, have uncertain comparative risks on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis, while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate may decrease minor bleeding, but the effects on major bleeding and extracorporeal circuit thrombosis were not reported. Evidence supporting clinical decision-making for different forms of anticoagulant strategies for HD is of low and very low certainty, as available studies have not been designed to measure treatment effects on important clinical 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.

Arterial Versus Venous Port Site Administration of Nadroparin for Preventing Thrombosis of Extracorporeal Blood Circuits in Patients Receiving Hemodiafiltration Treatment

Introduction

Administration of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) is necessary for preventing extracorporeal circuit thrombosis during hemodialysis. A substantial amount of LMWH is removed with online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF) when administered through the inlet site of the extracorporeal circuit. Consequently, administration of LMWH at the outlet site appears to be more efficient. In this study we aimed to compare the effects of nadroparin calcium (NAD) administered through the outlet versus the inlet port site in postdilution OL-HDF and assess the NAD dose reduction.

Methods

Forty-nine hemodialysis patients were included in 3 consecutive 6-week studies as follows: phase I, inlet port line; phase II, outlet port line; and phase III, outlet port line with reduced dose. We evaluated clotting in the hemodialyzer and venous bubble trap, the dialysis dose (K t/V), and substitution volume.

Results

Thirty four percent, 63%, and 66% were categorized as "white" during phases I, II, and III, respectively. During phases I, II, and III, 75%, 93%, and 95% of the venous bubble traps were "clean," and 9%, 0.6%, and 0.4% of the dialyzers clotted, respectively. Average NAD dose was 0.43 ml during phase I and 0.3 ml during phase II. During phase III, the LMWH dose was reduced by 33% to 50% in 15 patients. In phase III, Kt/V improved from 1.64 to 1.75 and substitution volume increased from 20.18 to 21.96 L.

Conclusions

When using OL-HDF, a single administration of NAD at the outlet port line allows for a significant dose reduction and was associated with improved dialysis performance.

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.