Key result
Continuous nadroparin infusion lowers 1-hour anti-Xa levels by ~0.19 IU/mL vs bolus during hemodialysis.
Why the study?
Does nadroparin continuous infusion safely prevent early overanticoagulation compared to single bolus injection in patients undergoing conventional hemodialysis?
RCT (n=16)
Single-blind
1:1 crossover
No
Does nadroparin continuous infusion safely prevent early overanticoagulation compared to single bolus injection in patients undergoing conventional hemodialysis?
Continuous infusion of LMWH during hemodialysis is feasible and avoids the early excessive anticoagulation peak seen with traditional bolus dosing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Continuous nadroparin infusion may reduce early overanticoagulation risk in hemodialysis; extends RCT evidence for LMWH dosing optimization.
BACKGROUND: Low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is commonly used as an anticoagulant for haemodialysis by a single-bolus injection. However, its application in extended haemodialysis has been infrequently studied. In particular, for nocturnal home haemodialysis patients sleeping throughout treatment, the need for additional intradialytic bolus might render the use of LMWH impractical. To overcome this limitation, we changed traditional bolus injections to continuous infusion. We first tested our method among in-centre 4-h haemodialysis patients to establish a feasible and safe infusion regimen before utilizing it in extended dialyses at home. METHODS: Recruited patients were given nadroparin (standardized at 65 IU/kg) as an anticoagulant for haemodialysis. They were first randomized to receive nadroparin either by bolus injection or infusion. Afterwards, the patients underwent crossover to receive the alternate method of LMWH anticoagulation. The degrees of anticoagulation and bleeding complications were compared. RESULTS: Sixteen haemodialysis patients were recruited. After nadroparin administration, anti-Xa levels at the first hour were significantly higher by the bolus than the infusion methods (0.68 ± 0.10 versus 0.49 ± 0.10 IU/mL, P < 0.001) and were similar by the second hour (0.56 ± 0.10 versus 0.55 ± 0.11 IU/mL, P = 0.64). At the sixth hour, anti-Xa levels by the infusion method were significantly higher (0.35 ± 0.13 versus 0.25 ± 0.10 IU/mL, P < 0.001), suggesting the infusion approach required a dosage reduction. There were no bleeding events reported in either method. CONCLUSIONS: LMWH infusion is feasible and safe. The method avoids early excessive anticoagulation caused by bolus injection and reduces the LMWH dose. Future studies should be conducted to evaluate LMWH infusion in extended haemodialysis treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wong et al. (2016) conducted an RCT in End-stage renal disease on hemodialysis (n=16). Nadroparin continuous infusion vs. Nadroparin bolus injection (65 IU/kg) was evaluated on Anti-Xa level at the first hour of hemodialysis (p=<0.001). Nadroparin continuous infusion avoided early excessive anticoagulation compared to bolus injection, achieving lower anti-Xa levels at the first hour.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: