接受ECMO支持的COVID-19感染患者的抗凝策略

Q2 Health Professions
Dayne Diaz, Jenny Martinez, Grant Bushman, William R Wolowich
{"title":"接受ECMO支持的COVID-19感染患者的抗凝策略","authors":"Dayne Diaz,&nbsp;Jenny Martinez,&nbsp;Grant Bushman,&nbsp;William R Wolowich","doi":"10.1051/ject/2023027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure may deteriorate despite invasive mechanical ventilation and thus require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the antithrombotic of choice, however, bivalirudin may offer more predictable pharmacokinetics resulting in consistent anticoagulant effects with lower bleeding and thrombotic occurrences. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes in patients undergoing venovenous (VV) ECMO receiving bivalirudin or UFH-based anticoagulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study included patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection requiring VV ECMO support receiving anticoagulation with UFH or bivalirudin. Primary endpoints were time to reach therapeutic aPTT, percent time spent in aPTT range, and the occurrence of thrombotic events over the entire course of ECMO support. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of major/minor bleeding, the ability to wean off ECMO support, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two patients were included in the study (n = 10 UFH, n = 12 bivalirudin). Time to therapeutic aPTT was achieved faster with UFH (10 h vs. 20 h). The percentage time spent within the goal aPTT range was similar between UFH and bivalirudin (50% vs. 52%). Thrombotic events were significantly higher in the UFH group (40% DVT, 40% PE, 80% oxygenator thrombus in ECMO machine, 10% ischemic stroke) versus bivalirudin (8% DVT, 17% PE, 33% oxygenator thrombus, no ischemic strokes) (CI 95%, p = 0.04). The overall bleeding incidence was higher in the UFH arm (90% vs. 75%). The mortality rate was 90% in the UFH group and 58% in the bivalirudin group. The length of stay was similar between the two study arms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In hospitalized patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on VV ECMO support, the use of bivalirudin showed to be a viable anticoagulation alternative in terms of efficacy compared to UFH and resulted in a favorable safety profile with lower rates of bleeding and thrombotic events.</p>","PeriodicalId":39644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology","volume":"55 3","pages":"121-129"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10487306/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19 infected patients receiving ECMO support.\",\"authors\":\"Dayne Diaz,&nbsp;Jenny Martinez,&nbsp;Grant Bushman,&nbsp;William R Wolowich\",\"doi\":\"10.1051/ject/2023027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure may deteriorate despite invasive mechanical ventilation and thus require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the antithrombotic of choice, however, bivalirudin may offer more predictable pharmacokinetics resulting in consistent anticoagulant effects with lower bleeding and thrombotic occurrences. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes in patients undergoing venovenous (VV) ECMO receiving bivalirudin or UFH-based anticoagulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study included patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection requiring VV ECMO support receiving anticoagulation with UFH or bivalirudin. Primary endpoints were time to reach therapeutic aPTT, percent time spent in aPTT range, and the occurrence of thrombotic events over the entire course of ECMO support. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of major/minor bleeding, the ability to wean off ECMO support, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two patients were included in the study (n = 10 UFH, n = 12 bivalirudin). Time to therapeutic aPTT was achieved faster with UFH (10 h vs. 20 h). The percentage time spent within the goal aPTT range was similar between UFH and bivalirudin (50% vs. 52%). Thrombotic events were significantly higher in the UFH group (40% DVT, 40% PE, 80% oxygenator thrombus in ECMO machine, 10% ischemic stroke) versus bivalirudin (8% DVT, 17% PE, 33% oxygenator thrombus, no ischemic strokes) (CI 95%, p = 0.04). The overall bleeding incidence was higher in the UFH arm (90% vs. 75%). The mortality rate was 90% in the UFH group and 58% in the bivalirudin group. The length of stay was similar between the two study arms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In hospitalized patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on VV ECMO support, the use of bivalirudin showed to be a viable anticoagulation alternative in terms of efficacy compared to UFH and resulted in a favorable safety profile with lower rates of bleeding and thrombotic events.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology\",\"volume\":\"55 3\",\"pages\":\"121-129\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10487306/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/2023027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/2023027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:住院的COVID-19低氧性呼吸衰竭患者即使有创机械通气也可能恶化,因此需要体外膜氧合(ECMO)支持。未分离肝素(UFH)是首选的抗血栓药物,然而,比伐鲁定可能提供更可预测的药代动力学,从而在降低出血和血栓发生率的同时产生一致的抗凝作用。本研究的目的是评估静脉静脉(VV) ECMO患者接受比伐鲁定或ufh抗凝治疗的有效性和安全性。方法:这项回顾性、单中心、观察性队列研究纳入了需要VV ECMO支持的确诊COVID-19感染患者,并使用UFH或比伐鲁定抗凝治疗。主要终点是达到治疗性aPTT的时间,aPTT范围内花费的时间百分比,以及在ECMO支持的整个过程中血栓事件的发生。次要终点包括大/小出血的发生率、脱离ECMO支持的能力、住院死亡率和住院时间。结果:22例患者纳入研究(n = 10 UFH, n = 12 bivalirudin)。UFH达到治疗性aPTT的时间更快(10小时比20小时)。在目标aPTT范围内花费的时间百分比在UFH和比伐鲁定之间相似(50%比52%)。血栓事件在UFH组(40% DVT, 40% PE, 80% ECMO机氧合器血栓,10%缺血性卒中)明显高于比伐鲁定组(8% DVT, 17% PE, 33%氧合器血栓,无缺血性卒中)(CI 95%, p = 0.04)。UFH组的总出血发生率更高(90% vs. 75%)。UFH组死亡率为90%,比伐鲁定组死亡率为58%。两个研究组的住院时间相似。结论:在接受VV ECMO支持的covid -19相关急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)住院患者中,与UFH相比,使用比伐鲁定是一种有效的抗凝替代方案,并且具有良好的安全性,出血和血栓事件发生率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19 infected patients receiving ECMO support.

Anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19 infected patients receiving ECMO support.

Anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19 infected patients receiving ECMO support.

Anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19 infected patients receiving ECMO support.

Background: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure may deteriorate despite invasive mechanical ventilation and thus require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the antithrombotic of choice, however, bivalirudin may offer more predictable pharmacokinetics resulting in consistent anticoagulant effects with lower bleeding and thrombotic occurrences. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes in patients undergoing venovenous (VV) ECMO receiving bivalirudin or UFH-based anticoagulation.

Methods: This retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study included patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection requiring VV ECMO support receiving anticoagulation with UFH or bivalirudin. Primary endpoints were time to reach therapeutic aPTT, percent time spent in aPTT range, and the occurrence of thrombotic events over the entire course of ECMO support. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of major/minor bleeding, the ability to wean off ECMO support, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay.

Results: Twenty-two patients were included in the study (n = 10 UFH, n = 12 bivalirudin). Time to therapeutic aPTT was achieved faster with UFH (10 h vs. 20 h). The percentage time spent within the goal aPTT range was similar between UFH and bivalirudin (50% vs. 52%). Thrombotic events were significantly higher in the UFH group (40% DVT, 40% PE, 80% oxygenator thrombus in ECMO machine, 10% ischemic stroke) versus bivalirudin (8% DVT, 17% PE, 33% oxygenator thrombus, no ischemic strokes) (CI 95%, p = 0.04). The overall bleeding incidence was higher in the UFH arm (90% vs. 75%). The mortality rate was 90% in the UFH group and 58% in the bivalirudin group. The length of stay was similar between the two study arms.

Conclusion: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on VV ECMO support, the use of bivalirudin showed to be a viable anticoagulation alternative in terms of efficacy compared to UFH and resulted in a favorable safety profile with lower rates of bleeding and thrombotic events.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology
Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: The Journal of Extracorporeal Technology is dedicated to the study and practice of Basic Science and Clinical issues related to extracorporeal circulation. Areas emphasized in the Journal include: •Cardiopulmonary Bypass •Cardiac Surgery •Cardiovascular Anesthesia •Hematology •Blood Management •Physiology •Fluid Dynamics •Laboratory Science •Coagulation and Hematology •Transfusion •Business Practices •Pediatric Perfusion •Total Quality Management • Evidence-Based Practices
×
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