RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the monitoring of anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) levels to avoid an accumulation of low-molecular-weight heparins in patients with acute kidney injury, but there is no evidence on how to proceed with such monitoring during continuous renal replacement therapy. Against this background, we investigated the potential accumulation of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in critically ill patients during continuous renal replacement therapy covered by regional citrate anticoagulation. METHODS: Anti-Xa levels were measured at baseline (≤12 h before renal replacement therapy) and on three consecutive days (A to C) when enoxaparin had reached trough levels. Supplementary testing included modified assays of rotational thromboelastometry known to be highly sensitive for low-molecular-weight heparins. RESULTS: The 16 men and 13 women included were adults comparable in age, body mass index, thromboembolism risk assessment, and clinical severity of the disease. Throughout the four examinations, the median trough levels of anti-Xa remained below the detection limit of the test (<0.1 IU mL-1), with interquartile ranges of <0.1 to 0.14 IU mL-1 at baseline and <0.1 to 0.16 IU mL-1 on days A/B/C. All rotational thromboelastometry parameters of clot initiation and clot formation dynamics did not significantly change from baseline to day C. CONCLUSIONS: Neither anti-Xa levels nor modified assays of rotational thromboelastometry revealed any accumulation of enoxaparin administered for thromboprophylaxis during continuous renal replacement therapy covered by regional citrate anticoagulation. Although generally recommended in patients with acute kidney injury, monitoring of anti-Xa levels should be questioned in this defined setting.
RESUMO
The use of colloids may impair hemostatic capacity. However, it remains unclear whether this also holds true when colloids are administered in a goal-directed manner. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of goal-directed fluid management with 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 on hemostasis compared to lactated Ringer's solution in patients undergoing partial hepatectomy. We included 50 patients in this prospective, randomized, controlled trial. According to randomization, patients received boluses of either hydroxyethyl starch or lactated Ringer's solution within the scope of goal-directed fluid management. Minimum perioperative FIBTEM maximum clot firmness (MCF) served as the primary outcome parameter. Secondary outcome parameters included fibrinogen levels and estimated blood loss. In the hydroxyethyl starch (HES) group the minimum FIBTEM MCF value was significantly lower (effect size -6 mm, 95% CI -10 to -3, p < 0.001) in comparison to the lactated Ringer's solution (RL) group. These results returned to normal within 24 h. We observed no difference in plasma fibrinogen levels (RL 3.08 ± 0.37 g L-1 vs HES 2.65 ± 0.64 g L-1, p = 0.18) or the amount of blood loss between the two groups (RL 470 ± 299 mL vs HES 604 ± 351 mL, p = 0.18). We showed that goal-directed use of HES impairs fibrin polymerization in a dose-dependent manner when compared with RL. Results returned to normal on the first postoperative day without administration of procoagulant drugs and no differences in blood loss were observed.
RESUMO
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is gaining importance in the perioperative management of lung transplant patients. To date, the ideal substance for anticoagulation of ECMO patients is still a matter of debate. In this study, we describe our experience with the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in comparison with unfractioned heparin (UFH) in lung transplant patients undergoing perioperative ECMO support. We retrospectively analyzed data from all lung transplant patients who underwent perioperative ECMO support at our institution between 2013 and 2017. Bleeding events served as primary outcome parameter. Secondary outcome parameters consisted of thromboembolic events. 102 patients were included in this study, of which 22 (21.6%) received UFH for anticoagulation, and 80 (78.4%) received LMWH. There was no difference between the two groups in regard to serious bleeding events (22.7% in the UFH group vs 12.5% in the LMWH group, P = .31). However, the proportion of patients experiencing thromboembolic events was significantly higher in the UFH group than in the LMWH group (50% vs 20%, P = .01). After adjusting for baseline differences between the two groups, we still observed a difference with respect to thromboembolic events. These data remain to be validated in future prospective, randomized trials.
