PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 1, 2004Journal of the American Society of Nephrology168 citations

Safety and Efficacy of Low Molecular Weight Heparins for Hemodialysis in Patients with End-Stage Renal Failure

View Full Paper
WLWendy LimMCMark Crowther

Structured PICO

Does LMWH compared with UFH improve safety (bleeding) or efficacy (preventing circuit thrombosis) in patients with ESRD undergoing hemodialysis?

P
Population
Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing hemodialysis (17 RCTs included in systematic review, 11 in meta-analysis)
I
Intervention
Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH)
C
Comparator
Unfractionated heparin (UFH)
O
Outcome
Bleeding events, bleeding assessed by vascular access compression time, extracorporeal circuit thrombosis, and anti-Xa levelssafety

LMWH appears to be as safe and effective as UFH for preventing extracorporeal circuit thrombosis during hemodialysis in ESRD patients, though larger rigorous trials are needed.

Limitations

  • Current trials are small and lack rigorous methodology, making inferences weak

Abstract

Low molecular weight heparins (LWMH) are the preferred initial treatment for many thromboembolic disorders but are renally excreted and relatively contraindicated in patients with renal failure because of concerns of increased bleeding risks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LMWH compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) for preventing thrombosis of the extracorporeal dialysis circuit. Studies were identified with the use of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and FirstSearch; reference lists were reviewed; and pharmaceutical companies were contacted. Randomized, controlled trials that compared an LMWH with another anticoagulant during hemodialysis in patients with ESRD and reported at least one of bleeding, extracorporeal circuit thrombosis, or anti-Xa levels were chosen. Two reviewers independently extracted data on methodologic quality, study design, clinical outcomes, and anti-Xa levels. Seventeen trials were included in this systematic review, 11 of which were included in the meta-analysis. It was found that LMWH did not significantly affect the number of bleeding events (relative risk, 0.96; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.27 to 3.43), bleeding assessed by vascular access compression time (weighted mean difference, -0.87; 95% CI, -2.75 to 1.02), or extracorporeal circuit thrombosis (relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.91) as compared with UFH. LMWH seem to be as safe as UFH in terms of bleeding complications and as effective as UFH in preventing extracorporeal circuit thrombosis. However, inferences from these trials assessing anticoagulation for patients who undergo hemodialysis will continue to be weak until larger, more rigorous randomized trials are conducted.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Lim et al. (2004) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a85714e6f8d490ba41e5b9ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.asn.0000145014.80714.35
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper