Suppr超能文献

比较 COVID-19 危重症患者肾替代治疗中不同抗凝策略的队列研究。

Comparison of different anticoagulation strategies for renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study.

机构信息

Department of Medicine IV: Nephrology and Primary Care, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

出版信息

BMC Nephrol. 2020 Nov 16;21(1):486. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-02150-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have a high risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) that requires renal replacement therapy (RRT). A state of hypercoagulability reduces circuit life spans. To maintain circuit patency and therapeutic efficiency, an optimized anticoagulation strategy is needed. This study investigates whether alternative anticoagulation strategies for RRT during COVID-19 are superior to administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study on 71 critically ill COVID-19 patients (≥18 years), admitted to intensive care units at a tertiary health care facility in the southwestern part of Germany between February 26 and May 21, 2020. We collected data on the disease course, AKI, RRT, and thromboembolic events. Four different anticoagulatory regimens were administered. Anticoagulation during continuous veno-venous hemodialysis (CVVHD) was performed with UFH or citrate. Anticoagulation during sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis (SLEDD) was performed with UFH, argatroban, or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Primary outcome is the effect of the anticoagulation regimen on mean treatment times of RRT.

RESULTS

In patients receiving CVVHD, mean treatment time in the UFH group was 21.3 h (SEM: ±5.6 h), in the citrate group 45.6 h (SEM: ±2.7 h). Citrate anticoagulation significantly prolonged treatment times by 24.4 h (P = .001). In patients receiving SLEDD, mean treatment time with UFH was 8.1 h (SEM: ±1.3 h), with argatroban 8.0 h (SEM: ±0.9 h), and with LMWH 11.8 h (SEM: ±0.5 h). LMWH significantly prolonged treatment times by 3.7 h (P = .008) and 3.8 h (P = .002), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

UFH fails to prevent early clotting events in the dialysis circuit during COVID-19. For patients, who do not require effective systemic anticoagulation, regional citrate dialysis is the most effective strategy. For patients, who require effective systemic anticoagulation, the usage of LMWH results in the longest circuit life spans. The proposed anticoagulatory strategies are safe, can easily be monitored, and allow an individualized treatment.

摘要

背景

危重症 2019 冠状病毒病(COVID-19)患者发生急性肾损伤(AKI)的风险很高,需要肾脏替代治疗(RRT)。高凝状态会降低回路的使用寿命。为了保持回路畅通和治疗效果,需要优化抗凝策略。本研究旨在探讨 COVID-19 期间 RRT 的替代抗凝策略是否优于普通肝素(UFH)的应用。

方法

这是一项回顾性队列研究,纳入了 2020 年 2 月 26 日至 5 月 21 日期间在德国西南部一家三级医疗机构重症监护病房收治的 71 例≥18 岁的危重症 COVID-19 患者。我们收集了疾病过程、AKI、RRT 和血栓栓塞事件的数据。共使用了四种不同的抗凝方案。连续性静脉-静脉血液透析(CVVHD)期间使用 UFH 或柠檬酸盐进行抗凝。持续性低效率每日透析(SLEDD)期间使用 UFH、阿加曲班或低分子肝素(LMWH)进行抗凝。主要结局是抗凝方案对 RRT 治疗时间的影响。

结果

在接受 CVVHD 的患者中,UFH 组的平均治疗时间为 21.3 小时(SEM:±5.6 小时),柠檬酸盐组为 45.6 小时(SEM:±2.7 小时)。柠檬酸盐抗凝显著延长治疗时间 24.4 小时(P=0.001)。在接受 SLEDD 的患者中,UFH 组的平均治疗时间为 8.1 小时(SEM:±1.3 小时),阿加曲班组为 8.0 小时(SEM:±0.9 小时),LMWH 组为 11.8 小时(SEM:±0.5 小时)。LMWH 分别显著延长治疗时间 3.7 小时(P=0.008)和 3.8 小时(P=0.002)。

结论

UFH 不能预防 COVID-19 期间透析回路中的早期凝血事件。对于不需要有效全身抗凝的患者,局部柠檬酸盐透析是最有效的策略。对于需要有效全身抗凝的患者,使用 LMWH 可使回路寿命最长。所提出的抗凝策略安全、易于监测,并可实现个体化治疗。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a3a0/7670717/14df8c3dc3c8/12882_2020_2150_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验