Why the study?
What are the dosing requirements and safety outcomes of bivalirudin in adult patients on extracorporeal life support?
What are the dosing requirements and safety outcomes of bivalirudin in adult patients on extracorporeal life support?
Bivalirudin is a potential alternative anticoagulant for adult ECLS patients, but wide dosing variations and increased requirements during renal replacement necessitate careful management.
Bivalirudin dosing in ECLS may require titration with renal replacement; leaves open standardization and bleeding risk mitigation in prospective studies.
Systemic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin is standard of care for patients receiving extracorporeal life support (ECLS); however, an alternative anticoagulant may be necessary when challenges with heparin therapy arise. Evidence for alternative anticoagulation in ECLS patients is limited. This retrospective analysis evaluated the dosing and outcomes associated with bivalirudin use in 14 adult ECLS patients. Indications for bivalirudin included heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, heparin resistance, or persistent clotting or bleeding while on heparin. The median initial bivalirudin dose to achieve target activated partial thromboplastin time was 0.15 mg/kg/h (range 0.04-0.26 mg/kg/h). Dosing requirements increased by 75-125% when renal replacement was included. Median time on bivalirudin was 5.2 days (range 0.9-28 days). Five patients (36%) required a circuit change while on bivalirudin because of clotting or failing oxygenation, and four (28.6%) had bleeding significant enough to require either reduction in activated partial thromboplastin time goals or temporary holding of anticoagulation. Bivalirudin appears to be a potential option for adult patients on ECLS who are unable to receive or fail heparin therapy; however, the wide variation in dosing suggests the need for careful management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walker et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: