Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2026
Use of argatroban as a heparin alternative in cardiac surgery-a rapid review of case reports and series.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bouvette Sharon, Butt Amir L, Clifton Shari C, Stewart Kenneth E, Boylan Paul M, Mazzeffi Michael A, Tanaka Kenichi A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Argatroban has been used as an alternative anticoagulant for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) or heparin allergy. Its mechanism of action differs from heparin, and concerns regarding dosing, monitoring, and circuit thrombosis risk remain insufficiently characterized.
OBJECTIVES: This study systematically reviewed published cases of argatroban anticoagulation during CPB for dosing patterns, activated clotting time (ACT) responses, thrombotic and bleeding events, and transfusions.
METHODS: A rapid review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane Rapid Reviews guidance. Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and other index databases identified clinical reports involving argatroban use during CPB. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine publications describing 30 patients (24 adult and 6 pediatric cases) met inclusion criteria. The median initial argatroban bolus was 0.1 mg/kg, but it was doubled to achieve ACTs of ≥400 seconds. Median infusion rate (25th-75th percentile) was 6.8 (4.6-9.7) μg/kg/min. ACT responses were nonlinear, with fluctuations of >100 seconds occurring in 70% of cases. Despite ACTs of ≥400 seconds, circuit thrombosis occurred in 40% of cases, most commonly in the reservoir or oxygenator. Recovery to ACT of <200 seconds required a median of 7 hours after discontinuing drug infusion. Perioperative transfusion occurred in 80% of cases.
CONCLUSION: Published experience demonstrates major limitations of argatroban as a heparin substitute for CPB, including unpredictable ACT responses and frequently documented circuit thromboses. The reported complication rates should be interpreted as an upper bound given the descriptive nature of case-level evidence and the likelihood of publication bias.
OBJECTIVES: This study systematically reviewed published cases of argatroban anticoagulation during CPB for dosing patterns, activated clotting time (ACT) responses, thrombotic and bleeding events, and transfusions.
METHODS: A rapid review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane Rapid Reviews guidance. Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and other index databases identified clinical reports involving argatroban use during CPB. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine publications describing 30 patients (24 adult and 6 pediatric cases) met inclusion criteria. The median initial argatroban bolus was 0.1 mg/kg, but it was doubled to achieve ACTs of ≥400 seconds. Median infusion rate (25th-75th percentile) was 6.8 (4.6-9.7) μg/kg/min. ACT responses were nonlinear, with fluctuations of >100 seconds occurring in 70% of cases. Despite ACTs of ≥400 seconds, circuit thrombosis occurred in 40% of cases, most commonly in the reservoir or oxygenator. Recovery to ACT of <200 seconds required a median of 7 hours after discontinuing drug infusion. Perioperative transfusion occurred in 80% of cases.
CONCLUSION: Published experience demonstrates major limitations of argatroban as a heparin substitute for CPB, including unpredictable ACT responses and frequently documented circuit thromboses. The reported complication rates should be interpreted as an upper bound given the descriptive nature of case-level evidence and the likelihood of publication bias.