Department of Nephrology and Institute of Nephrology, Sichuan Clinical Research Centre for Kidney Diseases, School of Medicine, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 24;19(10):e0311603. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311603. eCollection 2024.
Extracorporeal line clotting during plasma exchange (PE) not only delays efficient treatment, but also cause great waste of nursing resources. There is a lack of comprehensive comparison of the efficacy and safety among different anticoagulation regimens in plasma exchange in literature.
A systematic search was performed in EMBASE, MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Library, and CNKI. Studies that had compared at least two anticoagulation regimens in PE were considered eligible. The anticoagulative efficacy outcome was assessed by the occurrence of extracorporeal circuit clotting. The safety outcome was assessed by the occurrence of bleeding events, post-treatment APTT values, and post-treatment platelets counts. The risk of bias was assessed by the AHRQ tool. Mean differences or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of continuous variables and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs of categorical variables were pooled using a random-effects or a fixed-effects model as appropriate.
In all, 7 studies with 1638 patients and 10951 sessions of PE treatment were included. Pooled results indicated the anticoagulative efficacy of UFH was better than that of saline flushing, yet did not differ with those of LMWH or RCA. Although the occurrence of bleeding events had no difference among different pairs of anticoagulation regimens, anticoagulation using UFH might lead to longer post-treatment APTT value and lower post-treatment platelet counts. Only one study was judged to have low risk of bias in each of the five domains in the AHRQ tool.
The current anticoagulation regimens are generally effective and well tolerated in PE; however, the number of included studies was too limited to draw definitive conclusions.
血浆置换(PE)过程中外置管路凝血不仅会延迟治疗效率,还会浪费大量护理资源。文献中缺乏关于不同抗凝方案在血浆置换中疗效和安全性的综合比较。
系统检索 EMBASE、MEDLINE 数据库下的 PubMed、Cochrane 中心图书馆和中国知网(CNKI)。纳入比较至少两种抗凝方案在 PE 中应用的研究。抗凝效果通过体外回路凝血的发生来评估。安全性通过出血事件的发生、治疗后 APTT 值和治疗后血小板计数来评估。使用 AHRQ 工具评估偏倚风险。采用随机效应或固定效应模型,根据连续性变量的均数差值或标准化均数差值(95%置信区间[CI])和分类变量的风险比(RR)(95%CI)合并数据。
共纳入 7 项研究,包括 1638 例患者和 10951 次 PE 治疗。汇总结果表明,UFH 的抗凝效果优于生理盐水冲洗,但与 LMWH 或 RCA 无差异。尽管不同抗凝方案之间出血事件的发生没有差异,但 UFH 抗凝可能导致治疗后 APTT 值延长和血小板计数降低。AHRQ 工具的五个领域中,只有一项研究被判定为每个领域的低偏倚风险。
目前的抗凝方案在 PE 中通常有效且耐受良好;然而,纳入的研究数量有限,无法得出明确的结论。