Department of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Crit Care. 2021 Apr 29;25(1):160. doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03581-x.
During venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO), direct thrombin inhibitors are considered by some potentially advantageous over unfractionated heparin (UFH). We tested the hypothesis that Argatroban is non-inferior to UFH regarding thrombosis and bleeding during vvECMO.
We conducted a propensity-score matched observational non-inferiority study of consecutive patients without heparin-induced-thrombocytopenia (HIT) on vvECMO, treated between January 2006 and March 2019 in the medical intensive care unit at the University Hospital Regensburg. Anticoagulation was realized with UFH until August 2017 and with Argatroban from September 2017 onwards. Target activated partial thromboplastin time was 50 ± 5seconds in both groups. Primary composite endpoint was major thrombosis and/or major bleeding. Major bleeding was defined as a drop in hemoglobin of ≥ 2 g/dl/day or in transfusion of ≥ 2 packed red cells/24 h, or retroperitoneal, cerebral, or pulmonary bleeding. Major thrombosis was defined as obstruction of > 50% of the vessel lumen diameter by means of duplex sonography. We also assessed technical complications such as oxygenator defects or pump head thrombosis, the time-course of platelets, and the cost of anticoagulation (including HIT-testing).
Out of 465 patients receiving UFH, 78 were matched to 39 patients receiving Argatroban. The primary endpoint occurred in 79% of patients in the Argatroban group and in 83% in the UFH group (non-inferiority for Argatroban, p = 0.026). The occurrence of technical complications was equally distributed (Argatroban 49% vs. UFH 42%, p = 0.511). The number of platelets was similar in both groups before ECMO therapy but lower in the UFH group after end of ECMO support (median [IQR]: 141 [104;198]/nl vs. 107 [54;171]/nl, p = 0.010). Anticoagulation costs per day of ECMO were higher in the Argatroban group (€26 [13.8;53.0] vs. €0.9 [0.5;1.5], p < 0.001) but not after accounting for blood products and HIT-testing (€63 [42;171) vs. €40 [17;158], p = 0.074).
In patients without HIT on vvECMO, Argatroban was non-inferior to UFH regarding bleeding and thrombosis. The occurrence of technical complications was similarly distributed. Argatroban may have less impact on platelet decrease during ECMO, but this finding needs further evaluation. Direct drug costs were higher for Argatroban but comparable to UFH after accounting for HIT-testing and transfusions.
在静脉-静脉体外膜肺氧合(vvECMO)期间,一些人认为直接凝血酶抑制剂比未分级肝素(UFH)更有优势。我们检验了这样一个假设,即在 vvECMO 期间,阿加曲班在血栓形成和出血方面与 UFH 相比不劣效。
我们对 2006 年 1 月至 2019 年 3 月期间在雷根斯堡大学医院重症监护病房接受 vvECMO 治疗且无肝素诱导血小板减少症(HIT)的连续患者进行了倾向评分匹配的观察性非劣效性研究。抗凝治疗采用 UFH 直至 2017 年 8 月,阿加曲班自 2017 年 9 月起使用。两组目标激活部分凝血活酶时间均为 50±5 秒。主要复合终点是主要血栓形成和/或主要出血。主要出血定义为血红蛋白下降≥2g/dl/天或输注≥2 单位浓缩红细胞/24 小时,或腹膜后、脑或肺出血。主要血栓形成定义为通过双功超声检查发现血管腔直径>50%的阻塞。我们还评估了技术并发症,如氧合器缺陷或泵头血栓形成、血小板的时间过程以及抗凝的成本(包括 HIT 检测)。
在接受 UFH 的 465 例患者中,78 例与接受阿加曲班的 39 例患者相匹配。阿加曲班组的主要终点发生率为 79%,UFH 组为 83%(阿加曲班不劣效于 UFH,p=0.026)。技术并发症的发生率在两组中分布均匀(阿加曲班 49%与 UFH 42%,p=0.511)。两组患者在 ECMO 治疗前血小板数量相似,但 UFH 组在 ECMO 支持结束后血小板数量较低(中位数[IQR]:141[104;198]/nl 与 107[54;171]/nl,p=0.010)。阿加曲班组 ECMO 期间的抗凝日成本较高(€26[13.8;53.0]与€0.9[0.5;1.5],p<0.001),但不计入血液制品和 HIT 检测后(€63[42;171]与€40[17;158],p=0.074)则并非如此。
在 vvECMO 期间无 HIT 的患者中,阿加曲班在出血和血栓形成方面与 UFH 相比不劣效。技术并发症的发生率分布相似。阿加曲班可能对 ECMO 期间血小板减少的影响较小,但这一发现需要进一步评估。直接药物成本阿加曲班较高,但计入 HIT 检测和输血后与 UFH 相当。