Key result
Simulated continuous venovenous hemodialysis reduced dabigatran plasma concentration by 14-17% at 3 hours, which was not fast enough for urgent interventions compared to intermittent hemodialysis.
Why the study?
Does continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD) improve the elimination of dabigatran compared to intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) in simulated clinical situations?
Does continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD) improve the elimination of dabigatran compared to intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) in simulated clinical situations?
CVVHD is not fast enough for urgent dabigatran reversal compared to IHD, but may be useful for moderately to severely renally impaired patients requiring less hemodynamically stressful modalities.
CVVHD simulation indicates insufficient dabigatran clearance for urgent needs; leaves open its real-world adjunctive value versus IHD.
There are clinical situations where rapid elimination of dabigatran is beneficial. Intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) removes dabigatran effectively but is not always available and requires a hemodynamically stable patient. We therefore investigated the continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD) technique for its potency in the elimination of dabigatran. Based on pharmacometric characterization of dabigatran in IHD, we simulated a broad range of dialysis settings for CVVHD and then applied the model to specific clinical situations. Dialysis of 3 hours' duration with typical clinical settings (dialysate flow rate 50 mL/min; blood flow rate 150 mL/min) reduced dabigatran plasma concentration by 14-17% in addition to the patient body clearance. Extending dialysis duration to 8 or 16 hours for patients with severe renal dysfunction resulted in additional reductions from 26% up to 40%. When comparing with IHD for different endpoints (reaching 50% of initial dabigatran concentration, or nondetectability of dabigatran by the Hemoclot test), CVVHD did not reach comparable elimination rates. CVVHD is not fast enough to prepare for urgent interventions in patients with high bleeding risks. However, in situations where less hemodynamically stressful modalities seem indicated, CVVHD might be useful in moderately to severely renally impaired patients to accelerate dabigatran elimination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liesenfeld et al. (2015) studied Patients requiring rapid elimination of dabigatran. Continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD) vs. Intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) was evaluated on Reduction in dabigatran plasma concentration. Simulated continuous venovenous hemodialysis reduced dabigatran plasma concentration by 14-17% at 3 hours, which was not fast enough for urgent interventions compared to intermittent hemodialysis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: