Zhonghua yi xue za zhi · 2010
[Appropriate dosage of unfraction heparin and low molecular weight heparin in hemodialysis patients].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Xiao Qing, Sun Xue-feng, Zhang Dong, Ma Zhi-fang, Wu Ming-ge, Wang Hui, Chen Xiang-mei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the appropriate dose of unfraction heparin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in hemodialysis patients.
METHODS: Thirty-eight hemodialysis patients were enrolled and randomly allocated into four groups.The initial bolus dose for the Low-dose (LH, n = 10) and high-dose heparin (HH, n = 10) groups were 35 U/kg and 55 U/kg, respectively.The repeated maintenance dose for both groups were 10 U/kg.h and 16 U/kg.h, respectively. Fragmin were administered as single bolus (60 U/kg or 80 U/kg) at 30 minutes before hemodialysis in Low-dose LMWH(LLMWH, n = 10) and High-dose LMWH (HLMW, n = 8) group, respectively. Furthermore, the dialysis circuits in LUFH and LLMWUFH groups were primed with with 4 mg/dl heparinized saline before hemodialysis. Glass bead active clotting time (gbACT), clot rate (CR) and platelet function (PF) were examined using Sonoclot analysator at 0 h, 2 h and the end of hemodialysis at the arterial circuit and 2 h at the venous circuit.
RESULTS: (1) LH and LUFH: the increase of gbACT and decrease of CR at the arterial circuit and the venous circuit at 2 h of hemodialysis were significant compared with baseline. While they recovered at the end of hemodialysis. No difference between the two groups at different time points was found, either. (2) LLMWH: No change were found in gbACT during hemodialysis. CR at the arterial circuit and the venous circuit were significantly decreased at 2 h and recovered at the end of hemodialysis. (3) LLMWUFH: gbACT at the arterial circuit was significantly increased only at 2 h of hemodialysis. CR at the arterial circuit and the venous circuit at 2 h of hemodialysis were significantly decreased and recovered when hemodialysis finished. (4) HH and HLMWH: gbACT were significantly increased and CR were rapidly decreased at both the arterial circuit and venous circuit at 2 h of hemodialysis.
CONCLUSION: Low-dose heparin was effective and safe as anticoagulant in hemodialysis. Low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin was efficient in anticoagulation to some extent. However, High-dose low-molecular-weight heparin, high-dose heparin and flushing with heparinized saline may increase the risk of hemorrhage.
METHODS: Thirty-eight hemodialysis patients were enrolled and randomly allocated into four groups.The initial bolus dose for the Low-dose (LH, n = 10) and high-dose heparin (HH, n = 10) groups were 35 U/kg and 55 U/kg, respectively.The repeated maintenance dose for both groups were 10 U/kg.h and 16 U/kg.h, respectively. Fragmin were administered as single bolus (60 U/kg or 80 U/kg) at 30 minutes before hemodialysis in Low-dose LMWH(LLMWH, n = 10) and High-dose LMWH (HLMW, n = 8) group, respectively. Furthermore, the dialysis circuits in LUFH and LLMWUFH groups were primed with with 4 mg/dl heparinized saline before hemodialysis. Glass bead active clotting time (gbACT), clot rate (CR) and platelet function (PF) were examined using Sonoclot analysator at 0 h, 2 h and the end of hemodialysis at the arterial circuit and 2 h at the venous circuit.
RESULTS: (1) LH and LUFH: the increase of gbACT and decrease of CR at the arterial circuit and the venous circuit at 2 h of hemodialysis were significant compared with baseline. While they recovered at the end of hemodialysis. No difference between the two groups at different time points was found, either. (2) LLMWH: No change were found in gbACT during hemodialysis. CR at the arterial circuit and the venous circuit were significantly decreased at 2 h and recovered at the end of hemodialysis. (3) LLMWUFH: gbACT at the arterial circuit was significantly increased only at 2 h of hemodialysis. CR at the arterial circuit and the venous circuit at 2 h of hemodialysis were significantly decreased and recovered when hemodialysis finished. (4) HH and HLMWH: gbACT were significantly increased and CR were rapidly decreased at both the arterial circuit and venous circuit at 2 h of hemodialysis.
CONCLUSION: Low-dose heparin was effective and safe as anticoagulant in hemodialysis. Low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin was efficient in anticoagulation to some extent. However, High-dose low-molecular-weight heparin, high-dose heparin and flushing with heparinized saline may increase the risk of hemorrhage.