Pollo Viviane, Dionízio Danielle, Bucuvic Edwa Maria, Castro João Henrique, Ponce Daniela
University São Paulo State-UNESP, Distrito de Rubiao Junior, Botucatu, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Hemodial Int. 2016 Jul;20(3):378-84. doi: 10.1111/hdi.12391. Epub 2016 Feb 7.
Introduction Thrombosis of tunneled central venous catheters (CVC) in hemodialysis (HD) patients is common and it can lead to the elimination of vascular sites. To compare the efficacy of alteplase vs. urokinase in reestablishing adequate blood flow through completely occluded vascular catheters. Methods In this randomized study, patients with completely occluded tunneled HD catheters received 40 minutes intracatheter dwell with alteplase (1 mg/mL) or urokinase (5000 IU/mL). Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with occluded catheters achieving post-thrombolytic blood flow of ≥250 mL/min. Safety endpoints included the incidence of hemorrhagic and infectious complications. Findings Eligible adult patients (n = 100) were treated with alteplase (n = 44) or urokinase (n = 56). The two groups were similar in gender (male: 51.8% vs. 56.8%, P = 0.35), age (60 ± 12 vs. 59 ± 13 years, P = 0.71), time on dialysis (678 ± 203 vs. 548 ± 189 days, P = 0.77), diabetes and cardiovascular disease (55.6% vs. 70.4%, P = 0.08 and 17.8% vs. 22.7%, P = 0.38, respectively), jugular vein as main vascular access (54.8% vs. 62.5%, P = 0.57), and time of CVC (278 ± 63 vs. 218 ± 59 days, P = 0.67). Primary success with alteplase and urokinase occurred in 42/44 (95%) vs. 46/56 (82%), P = 0.06. Success was not achieved after the second dose of alteplase and urokinase in 1 and 7 cases, respectively (2% vs. 12%, P = 0.075). Serious adverse effects were not observed in both groups. There was no difference between the two groups in infectious complications (P = 0.94). Discussion Alteplase and urokinase are effective thrombolytic agents for restoring HD catheter patency. Our study has revealed a likely slight superiority of alteplase over urokinase for unblocking central lines, but which has enrolled too few patients to be able to detect a difference of this size.
引言 血液透析(HD)患者隧道式中心静脉导管(CVC)血栓形成很常见,且可导致血管通路无法使用。比较阿替普酶与尿激酶在使完全堵塞的血管导管恢复充足血流方面的疗效。方法 在这项随机研究中,完全堵塞的隧道式HD导管患者接受阿替普酶(1 mg/mL)或尿激酶(5000 IU/mL)40分钟的导管内留置。主要终点是导管堵塞患者溶栓后血流达到≥250 mL/分钟的比例。安全终点包括出血和感染并发症的发生率。结果 符合条件的成年患者(n = 100)接受了阿替普酶(n = 44)或尿激酶(n = 56)治疗。两组在性别(男性:51.8%对56.8%,P = 0.35)、年龄(60±12岁对59±13岁,P = 0.71)、透析时间(678±203天对548±189天,P = 0.77)、糖尿病和心血管疾病(分别为55.6%对70.4%,P = 0.08和17.8%对22.7%,P = 0.38)、以颈静脉作为主要血管通路(54.8%对62.5%,P = 0.57)以及CVC使用时间(278±63天对218±59天,P = 0.67)方面相似。阿替普酶和尿激酶的主要成功率分别为42/44(95%)对46/56(82%),P = 0.06。分别有1例和7例在使用第二剂阿替普酶和尿激酶后未成功(2%对12%,P = 0.075)。两组均未观察到严重不良反应。两组在感染并发症方面无差异(P = 0.94)。讨论 阿替普酶和尿激酶是恢复HD导管通畅的有效溶栓剂。我们的研究显示阿替普酶在疏通中心静脉导管方面可能略优于尿激酶,但本研究纳入患者过少,无法检测到这种程度的差异。