Hory B, Cachoux A, Saunier F, Kieffer Y, Laroze M, Henriet M T, Toulemonde F, Bayrou B, Perol C
Presse Med. 1987 May 23;16(19):955-8.
In the course of dialysis sessions, we have compared the antithrombotic effect of two heparinization regimens: low molecular weight heparin (CY 222, mean molecular weight: 2,500, Institute Choay, France): 90 anti-Xa units/kg bodyweight as a bolus injection followed by a continuous infusion of 1,000 anti-Xa units/hour (regimen 1); or 300 anti-Xa units/kg as a bolus injection (regimen 3), with a standard heparinization regimen (100 IU/kg regimen 2). Eight patients received the 3 regimens successively. Factor IIa and factor Xa inactivation was measured by a method that uses chromogenic substrates. The frequency of adverse effects, ultrafiltration rates, creatinine and BUN clearances of the 3 regimens were similar, whereas dialyser blood loss was higher in the first regimen. At the dose of 300 anti-Xa units of CY 222 (regimen 3), inactivation of factor Xa was similar to Xa inhibition reached through the conventional treatment (regimen 2) but IIa inhibition was less pronounced.
在透析过程中,我们比较了两种肝素化方案的抗血栓形成效果:低分子量肝素(CY 222,平均分子量:2500,法国乔雅研究所):90抗Xa单位/千克体重静脉推注,随后以1000抗Xa单位/小时持续输注(方案1);或300抗Xa单位/千克静脉推注(方案3),与标准肝素化方案(100 IU/千克,方案2)进行比较。8名患者先后接受了这3种方案。采用使用显色底物的方法测定IIa因子和Xa因子的失活情况。3种方案的不良反应发生率、超滤率、肌酐清除率和尿素氮清除率相似,而第一种方案的透析器失血较多。在CY 222剂量为300抗Xa单位时(方案3),Xa因子的失活与传统治疗(方案2)达到的Xa抑制效果相似,但IIa抑制作用不那么明显。