Should I Change Anticoagulane in Veno-Venous ECMO?

IF 0.6 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Rabia Yılmaz, Murat Arslan, Deniz Özel Bilgi, Zafer Çukurova
{"title":"Should I Change Anticoagulane in Veno-Venous ECMO?","authors":"Rabia Yılmaz, Murat Arslan, Deniz Özel Bilgi, Zafer Çukurova","doi":"10.4274/TJAR.2025.241745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Due to a lack of high-quality data to guide anticoagulation therapy in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients, there is significant variation in practice among centers. We aimed to investigate the safety, anticoagulation efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of using bivaluridine as a primary anticoagulant without unfractionated heparin (UFH) in ECMO patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study population included patients undergoing Veno-Venous ECMO for acute respiratory distress syndrome. A total of 56 patients were evaluated, 25 were on UFH and 31 were on bivalirudin.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference between the time to reach the target activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) interval [6 (3.5-11) UFH, 9 (4-19) bivalirudin, P=0.287]. There was no significant difference between the percentage of time spent in the target aPTT interval (61.48±14.72 UFH, 62.65±11.99 bivaluridine, <i>P</i>=0.745). The median amount of erythrocyte suspension replacement (12.04±8.01; 7.9±4.71; <i>P</i>=0.028) and the median amount of fresh frozen plasma replacement [4 (2-6); 1 (0-4); <i>P</i>=0.001] were higher in the UFH group than in the bivaluridine group. The cost was lower in the UFH group compared to the bivalirudin group [$38.1 (13.5-48.7); $463.7 (194.3-819.8); <i>P</i> < 0.001].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of bivaluridine as a primary anticoagulant does not lead to any decrease in anticoagulant efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":23353,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","volume":" ","pages":"170-176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12288425/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2025.241745","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Due to a lack of high-quality data to guide anticoagulation therapy in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients, there is significant variation in practice among centers. We aimed to investigate the safety, anticoagulation efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of using bivaluridine as a primary anticoagulant without unfractionated heparin (UFH) in ECMO patients.

Methods: The study population included patients undergoing Veno-Venous ECMO for acute respiratory distress syndrome. A total of 56 patients were evaluated, 25 were on UFH and 31 were on bivalirudin.

Results: There was no significant difference between the time to reach the target activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) interval [6 (3.5-11) UFH, 9 (4-19) bivalirudin, P=0.287]. There was no significant difference between the percentage of time spent in the target aPTT interval (61.48±14.72 UFH, 62.65±11.99 bivaluridine, P=0.745). The median amount of erythrocyte suspension replacement (12.04±8.01; 7.9±4.71; P=0.028) and the median amount of fresh frozen plasma replacement [4 (2-6); 1 (0-4); P=0.001] were higher in the UFH group than in the bivaluridine group. The cost was lower in the UFH group compared to the bivalirudin group [$38.1 (13.5-48.7); $463.7 (194.3-819.8); P < 0.001].

Conclusion: The use of bivaluridine as a primary anticoagulant does not lead to any decrease in anticoagulant efficacy.

静脉-静脉ECMO时是否需要更换抗凝剂?
目的:由于缺乏指导体外膜氧合(extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO)患者抗凝治疗的高质量数据,各中心的实践存在较大差异。我们的目的是研究在ECMO患者中使用比伐尿定作为初级抗凝剂而不使用未分离肝素(UFH)的安全性、抗凝效果和成本效益。方法:研究人群包括接受静脉-静脉ECMO治疗急性呼吸窘迫综合征的患者。共评估56例患者,其中25例使用UFH, 31例使用比伐鲁定。结果:两组患者到达目标活化部分凝血活素时间(aPTT)间隔时间[6 (3.5-11)UFH, 9(4-19)比伐鲁定,P=0.287]无显著性差异。两组aPTT靶间期时间百分比(61.48±14.72 UFH, 62.65±11.99,P=0.745)差异无统计学意义。红细胞悬液置换中位数(12.04±8.01;7.9±4.71;P=0.028)和新鲜冷冻血浆置换中位数[4 (2-6);1 (0 - 4);P=0.001], UFH组高于比伐尿定组。与比伐鲁定组相比,UFH组的成本较低[38.1美元(13.5-48.7美元);463.7美元(194.3 - -819.8);P < 0.001]。结论:使用比伐尿定作为一级抗凝剂不会导致抗凝效果下降。
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信