Is an extended dose of subcutaneous nadroparin anticoagulation equally safe and feasible compared to unfractionated heparin anticoagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically ill COVID-19 patients?

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Paweł Piwowarczyk, Marta Szczukocka, Agata Uchacz, Paweł Kutnik, Tomasz Czarnik, Mirosław Czuczwar, Michał Borys
{"title":"Is an extended dose of subcutaneous nadroparin anticoagulation equally safe and feasible compared to unfractionated heparin anticoagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically ill COVID-19 patients?","authors":"Paweł Piwowarczyk, Marta Szczukocka, Agata Uchacz, Paweł Kutnik, Tomasz Czarnik, Mirosław Czuczwar, Michał Borys","doi":"10.5114/ait/202605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the traditional anticoagulant of choice in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Nadroparin, a low molecular weight heparin, potentially offers advantages such as predictable pharmacokinetics and reduced bleeding risks compared to UFH, with complex pharmacokinetics, influencing activated partial thromboplastin and causing substantial haemorrhagic risks. Bleeding, the most common adverse event during ECMO, is associated by many with increased activated partial thromboplastin time.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This retrospective, bicentric analysis involved 38 consecutive ECMO-supported COVID-19 patients from two Polish hospitals. The study compared 27 patients receiving UFH and 11 patients treated with 5700 IU of nadroparin administered subcutaneously twice daily. Thrombotic and haemorrhagic complications were assessed to determine the safety and feasibility of each anticoagulant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Resistance to flow throughout the therapy in the ECMO membrane oxygenator was significantly lower in the group anticoagulated with UFH (1.74 mmHg × minute × L<sup>-1</sup> [1.38-2.6] vs. 6.13 mmHg × minute × L<sup>-1</sup> [5.93-14.81]; <i>P</i> < 0.001). However, the number of transfused red blood cell packs in the aforementioned group was significantly greater (10 units [5-17] vs. 4 units [2-8]; <i>P</i> = 0.027), and the haemoglobin level after ECMO therapy was significantly lower (7.8 g dL<sup>-1</sup> [6.9-8.8] vs. 10.2 g dL<sup>-1</sup> [8.5-12.2]; <i>P</i> = 0.003). Moreover, there was a higher number of life-threatening events in the UFH group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>UFH anticoagulation may provide better flow optimization in the oxygenator, but the risk of life-threatening bleeding may increase. The present findings need to be fully elucidated in prospective studies on a larger critically ill population supported with respiratory ECMO.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"57 1","pages":"59-65"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait/202605","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the traditional anticoagulant of choice in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Nadroparin, a low molecular weight heparin, potentially offers advantages such as predictable pharmacokinetics and reduced bleeding risks compared to UFH, with complex pharmacokinetics, influencing activated partial thromboplastin and causing substantial haemorrhagic risks. Bleeding, the most common adverse event during ECMO, is associated by many with increased activated partial thromboplastin time.

Material and methods: This retrospective, bicentric analysis involved 38 consecutive ECMO-supported COVID-19 patients from two Polish hospitals. The study compared 27 patients receiving UFH and 11 patients treated with 5700 IU of nadroparin administered subcutaneously twice daily. Thrombotic and haemorrhagic complications were assessed to determine the safety and feasibility of each anticoagulant.

Results: Resistance to flow throughout the therapy in the ECMO membrane oxygenator was significantly lower in the group anticoagulated with UFH (1.74 mmHg × minute × L-1 [1.38-2.6] vs. 6.13 mmHg × minute × L-1 [5.93-14.81]; P < 0.001). However, the number of transfused red blood cell packs in the aforementioned group was significantly greater (10 units [5-17] vs. 4 units [2-8]; P = 0.027), and the haemoglobin level after ECMO therapy was significantly lower (7.8 g dL-1 [6.9-8.8] vs. 10.2 g dL-1 [8.5-12.2]; P = 0.003). Moreover, there was a higher number of life-threatening events in the UFH group.

Conclusions: UFH anticoagulation may provide better flow optimization in the oxygenator, but the risk of life-threatening bleeding may increase. The present findings need to be fully elucidated in prospective studies on a larger critically ill population supported with respiratory ECMO.

在COVID-19危重症患者体外膜氧合期间,与不分段肝素抗凝相比,扩大剂量皮下纳血素抗凝同样安全可行吗?
未分离肝素(uhf)是需要体外膜氧合(ECMO)治疗的COVID-19危重患者的传统抗凝药物选择。Nadroparin是一种低分子量肝素,与UFH相比,具有可预测的药代动力学和降低出血风险等潜在优势,具有复杂的药代动力学,影响活化的部分凝血活蛋白并引起大量出血风险。出血,在ECMO期间最常见的不良事件,是由许多增加活化部分凝血活素时间。材料和方法:这项回顾性双中心分析涉及来自波兰两家医院的38例连续ecmo支持的COVID-19患者。该研究比较了27名接受UFH治疗的患者和11名接受5700 IU nadroparin治疗的患者,每天两次皮下注射。评估血栓和出血性并发症,以确定每种抗凝剂的安全性和可行性。结果:联合UFH抗凝组在整个治疗过程中ECMO膜氧合器内的血流阻力明显降低(1.74 mmHg × minute × L-1 [1.38-2.6] vs. 6.13 mmHg × minute × L-1 [5.93-14.81];P < 0.001)。然而,上述组输血红细胞包的数量明显更多(10个单位[5-17]vs. 4个单位[2-8];P = 0.027), ECMO治疗后血红蛋白水平显著降低(7.8 g dL-1 [6.9-8.8] vs. 10.2 g dL-1 [8.5-12.2];P = 0.003)。此外,在UFH组中有更多的危及生命的事件。结论:UFH抗凝可能在氧合器中提供更好的血流优化,但可能会增加危及生命的出血风险。目前的研究结果需要在更大的危重患者群体的前瞻性研究中得到充分阐明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信