Rabia Yılmaz, Murat Arslan, Deniz Özel Bilgi, Zafer Çukurova
{"title":"静脉-静脉ECMO时是否需要更换抗凝剂?","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":"{\"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}","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}
Should I Change Anticoagulane in Veno-Venous ECMO?
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.