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.

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.

Heparin-free renal replacement therapy for chronic hemodialyzed patients at high risk for bleeding: a comparison of on-line predilution hemodiafiltration with conventional hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

In chronic hemodialysis patients with high risk of bleeding, optimal anticoagulation of the extracorporeal circuit is challenging. Heparin-free hemodialysis (HD) with heparin-coated AN69ST dialyzer is now considered as a good option and recommended by experts. Predilutional hemodiafiltration (HDF) may represent also a feasible alternative but has been poorly investigated. In this study, our aim was to evaluate the performance of on-line automated predilution heparin-free HDF as compared to conventional heparin-free HD with a heparin-coated membrane.

METHODS

We prospectively studied chronic hemodialysis patients at high risk of bleeding consecutively admitted to hospital who underwent heparin-free renal replacement therapy (RRT) in our nephrology department. During 1 year, we routinely used heparin-free HD and on-line HDF in these settings. By using a propensity score, we compared HDF to HD regarding to session failure and efficiency.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-nine patients were included in the study. Clotting phenomena necessitating premature termination of RRT sessions were encountered in 19% of them. After propensity score matching, the comparison of 77 HD and 77 HDF sessions showed no significant differences in duration of the sessions and in dialyzer clotting. By multivariate analysis, a blood flow less than 250 mL/min and recent surgery were the only parameters associated with extracorporeal circuit thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Heparin-free on-line predilutional HDF is a safe and effective technique for chronic hemodialysis patients with increased bleeding risk. The use of an automatic substitution volume that avoids filters hemoconcentration and of a blood flow above 250 mL/min strongly contribute to the observed performance. Further studies are, however, intended to confirm these results.