Retrospective Study of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Dosing of Heparin in Adult Patients receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

{"title":"Retrospective Study of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Dosing of Heparin in Adult Patients receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy","authors":"","doi":"10.33140/jpr.06.02.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Appropriate chemical and/or mechanical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is a high priority for clinicians. Unfortunately, there is little evidence-based guidance for clinical decision making for patients requiring both renal replacement therapy and VTE prophylaxis. The package insert for unfractionated heparin recommends 5000 units subcutaneously every 8 to 12 hours for VTE prophylaxis. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the two recommended dosing intervals and determine if there is a difference in terms of incidence of clotting or bleeding events. Methods: 159 patients were admitted to the UNC Health Care system between March 2014 and November 2019 and retrospectively screened for incidence of both the primary composite efficacy outcome (symptomatic or asymptomatic vascular event (VTE [DVT and PE]), ischemic event (stroke, TIA, or myocardial infarction), or death related to coagulopathy), the individual components of the composite outcome and the primary safety outcome. The results of the outcomes were then compared and analyzed using Fischer’s Exact test. Results: The two tailed p-values of the primary composite efficacy outcome (0.3517), the primary safety outcome (0.1571) and each of the composite outcomes (0.1556, 1.0000, 0.2297, respectively) showed no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Results of this study show that there is no statistical difference between the dosing intervals of prophylactic UFH of every 8 to 12 hours, in terms of the incidence of VTE and major bleed events, for patients requiring CRRT. Suggesting that either interval is both efficacious and safe for the use of VTE prophylaxis.","PeriodicalId":16706,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33140/jpr.06.02.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Appropriate chemical and/or mechanical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is a high priority for clinicians. Unfortunately, there is little evidence-based guidance for clinical decision making for patients requiring both renal replacement therapy and VTE prophylaxis. The package insert for unfractionated heparin recommends 5000 units subcutaneously every 8 to 12 hours for VTE prophylaxis. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the two recommended dosing intervals and determine if there is a difference in terms of incidence of clotting or bleeding events. Methods: 159 patients were admitted to the UNC Health Care system between March 2014 and November 2019 and retrospectively screened for incidence of both the primary composite efficacy outcome (symptomatic or asymptomatic vascular event (VTE [DVT and PE]), ischemic event (stroke, TIA, or myocardial infarction), or death related to coagulopathy), the individual components of the composite outcome and the primary safety outcome. The results of the outcomes were then compared and analyzed using Fischer’s Exact test. Results: The two tailed p-values of the primary composite efficacy outcome (0.3517), the primary safety outcome (0.1571) and each of the composite outcomes (0.1556, 1.0000, 0.2297, respectively) showed no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Results of this study show that there is no statistical difference between the dosing intervals of prophylactic UFH of every 8 to 12 hours, in terms of the incidence of VTE and major bleed events, for patients requiring CRRT. Suggesting that either interval is both efficacious and safe for the use of VTE prophylaxis.
持续肾替代治疗成人患者静脉血栓栓塞预防剂量肝素的回顾性研究
背景:适当的化学和/或机械静脉血栓栓塞预防是临床医生的首要任务。不幸的是,对于同时需要肾脏替代治疗和VTE预防的患者,临床决策几乎没有循证指导。普通肝素的包装插入物建议每8-12小时皮下注射5000单位用于VTE预防。目的:本研究的目的是评估两个推荐的给药间隔,并确定凝血或出血事件的发生率是否存在差异。方法:在2014年3月至2019年11月期间,共有159名患者入住北卡罗来纳大学医疗保健系统,并对主要综合疗效结果(有症状或无症状血管事件(VTE[DVT和PE])、缺血性事件(中风、TIA或心肌梗死)或与凝血病相关的死亡)的发生率进行回顾性筛查,复合结果和主要安全性结果的各个组成部分。然后使用Fischer精确检验对结果进行比较和分析。结果:主要综合疗效结果(0.3517)、主要安全性结果(0.1571)和各综合结果(分别为0.1556、1.0000、0.2297)的双尾p值无统计学显著差异。结论:本研究结果表明,对于需要CRRT的患者,预防性UFH每8-12小时的给药间隔在VTE和主要出血事件的发生率方面没有统计学差异。提示任何一种间隔对VTE预防的使用都是有效和安全的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4 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