Artificial organs · 2022
Use of nafamostat mesilate for anticoagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Sanfilippo Filippo, Currò Jessica Marika, La Via Luigi, Dezio Veronica, Martucci Gennaro, Brancati Serena, Murabito Paolo, Pappalardo Federico, Astuto Marinella
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents an advanced option for supporting refractory respiratory and/or cardiac failure. Systemic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) is routinely used. However, patients with bleeding risk and/or heparin-related side effects may necessitate alternative strategies: among these, nafamostat mesilate (NM) has been reported.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search (PubMed and EMBASE, updated 12/08/2021), including all studies reporting NM anticoagulation for ECMO. We focused on reasons for starting NM, its dose and the anticoagulation monitoring approach, the incidence of bleeding/thrombosis complications, the NM-related side effects, ECMO weaning, and mortality.
RESULTS: The search revealed 11 relevant findings, all with retrospective design. Of these, three large studies reported a control group receiving UFH, the other were case series (n = 3) or case reports (n = 5). The main reason reported for NM use was an ongoing or high risk of bleeding. The NM dose varied largely as did the anticoagulation monitoring approach. The average NM dose ranged from 0.46 to 0.67 mg/kg/h, but two groups of authors reported larger doses when monitoring anticoagulation with ACT. Conflicting findings were found on bleeding and thrombosis. The only NM-related side effect was hyperkalemia (n = 2 studies) with an incidence of 15%-18% in patients anticoagulated with NM. Weaning and survival varied across studies.
CONCLUSION: Anticoagulation with NM in ECMO has not been prospectively studied. While several centers have experience with this approach in high-risk patients, prospective studies are warranted to establish the optimal space of this approach in ECMO.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search (PubMed and EMBASE, updated 12/08/2021), including all studies reporting NM anticoagulation for ECMO. We focused on reasons for starting NM, its dose and the anticoagulation monitoring approach, the incidence of bleeding/thrombosis complications, the NM-related side effects, ECMO weaning, and mortality.
RESULTS: The search revealed 11 relevant findings, all with retrospective design. Of these, three large studies reported a control group receiving UFH, the other were case series (n = 3) or case reports (n = 5). The main reason reported for NM use was an ongoing or high risk of bleeding. The NM dose varied largely as did the anticoagulation monitoring approach. The average NM dose ranged from 0.46 to 0.67 mg/kg/h, but two groups of authors reported larger doses when monitoring anticoagulation with ACT. Conflicting findings were found on bleeding and thrombosis. The only NM-related side effect was hyperkalemia (n = 2 studies) with an incidence of 15%-18% in patients anticoagulated with NM. Weaning and survival varied across studies.
CONCLUSION: Anticoagulation with NM in ECMO has not been prospectively studied. While several centers have experience with this approach in high-risk patients, prospective studies are warranted to establish the optimal space of this approach in ECMO.