在静脉体外生命支持期间,通过抗Xa因子与活化的部分凝血活素时间策略进行无分离肝素监测。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Perfusion-Uk Pub Date : 2024-12-26 DOI:10.1177/02676591241309500
Iris Feng, Tanner R Powley, Christine G Yang, Paul A Kurlansky, Lauren D Sutherland, Jonathan M Hastie, Yuji Kaku, Justin A Fried, Koji Takeda
{"title":"在静脉体外生命支持期间,通过抗Xa因子与活化的部分凝血活素时间策略进行无分离肝素监测。","authors":"Iris Feng, Tanner R Powley, Christine G Yang, Paul A Kurlansky, Lauren D Sutherland, Jonathan M Hastie, Yuji Kaku, Justin A Fried, Koji Takeda","doi":"10.1177/02676591241309500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>No clear guidelines exist for unfractionated heparin (UFH) monitoring in adult patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) for refractory cardiogenic shock. In this study, we sought to compare outcomes between anti-factor Xa (FXa) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) strategies for UFH monitoring during VA-ECLS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-center, retrospective review of VA-ECLS patients who received UFH in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit between July 2019 and November 2023. Standard protocol for UFH titration was aPTT goal of 45-60 sec (<i>n</i> = 52) before September 2021, then transitioned to FXa goal of 0.1-0.2 U/mL (<i>n</i> = 50) thereafter. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline differences between cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In adjusted analyses, 89.3% of FXa patients and 76.0% of aPTT patients achieved goal range for their respective assay. Total UFH duration (4.0 vs 4.0 days, <i>p</i> = .239) and maximum weight-adjusted UFH dose (9.3 vs 9.4 U/hr/kg, <i>p</i> = .823) remained comparable between adjusted FXa and aPTT cohorts. Moreover, in-hospital mortality (50.3% vs 33.9%, <i>p</i> = .133), major bleeding events (20.6% vs 11.2%, <i>p</i> = .292), and thromboembolic events (30.1% vs 30.1%, <i>p</i> = .998) were not significantly different. Extracorporeal circuit thrombosis and cannula site bleeding were the most frequent events in both groups. Multivariate logistic regression found the FXa strategy was not a significant risk factor for the composite outcome of major bleeding or thromboembolism (OR [95% CI]: 1.539 [0.575, 4.116], <i>p</i> = .393).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In adult VA-ECLS patients at our institution, bleeding and thromboembolic complications occurred at a similar rate regardless of which UFH monitoring strategy was utilized. Further studies in larger and more institutionally diverse cohorts are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":49707,"journal":{"name":"Perfusion-Uk","volume":" ","pages":"2676591241309500"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unfractionated heparin monitoring by anti-factor Xa versus activated partial thromboplastin time strategies during venoarterial extracorporeal life support.\",\"authors\":\"Iris Feng, Tanner R Powley, Christine G Yang, Paul A Kurlansky, Lauren D Sutherland, Jonathan M Hastie, Yuji Kaku, Justin A Fried, Koji Takeda\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02676591241309500\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>No clear guidelines exist for unfractionated heparin (UFH) monitoring in adult patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) for refractory cardiogenic shock. In this study, we sought to compare outcomes between anti-factor Xa (FXa) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) strategies for UFH monitoring during VA-ECLS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-center, retrospective review of VA-ECLS patients who received UFH in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit between July 2019 and November 2023. Standard protocol for UFH titration was aPTT goal of 45-60 sec (<i>n</i> = 52) before September 2021, then transitioned to FXa goal of 0.1-0.2 U/mL (<i>n</i> = 50) thereafter. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline differences between cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In adjusted analyses, 89.3% of FXa patients and 76.0% of aPTT patients achieved goal range for their respective assay. Total UFH duration (4.0 vs 4.0 days, <i>p</i> = .239) and maximum weight-adjusted UFH dose (9.3 vs 9.4 U/hr/kg, <i>p</i> = .823) remained comparable between adjusted FXa and aPTT cohorts. Moreover, in-hospital mortality (50.3% vs 33.9%, <i>p</i> = .133), major bleeding events (20.6% vs 11.2%, <i>p</i> = .292), and thromboembolic events (30.1% vs 30.1%, <i>p</i> = .998) were not significantly different. Extracorporeal circuit thrombosis and cannula site bleeding were the most frequent events in both groups. Multivariate logistic regression found the FXa strategy was not a significant risk factor for the composite outcome of major bleeding or thromboembolism (OR [95% CI]: 1.539 [0.575, 4.116], <i>p</i> = .393).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In adult VA-ECLS patients at our institution, bleeding and thromboembolic complications occurred at a similar rate regardless of which UFH monitoring strategy was utilized. Further studies in larger and more institutionally diverse cohorts are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perfusion-Uk\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2676591241309500\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perfusion-Uk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591241309500\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perfusion-Uk","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591241309500","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于难治性心源性休克的成人静脉-动脉体外生命支持(VA-ECLS)患者,无分级肝素(UFH)监测尚无明确的指南。在这项研究中,我们试图比较VA-ECLS期间UFH监测的抗Xa因子(FXa)和活化部分凝血活素时间(aPTT)策略的结果。方法:对2019年7月至2023年11月期间在心胸重症监护病房接受UFH治疗的VA-ECLS患者进行单中心回顾性研究。2021年9月之前,UFH滴定的标准方案是aPTT目标45-60秒(n = 52),之后过渡到FXa目标0.1-0.2 U/mL (n = 50)。使用治疗加权的逆概率来平衡队列之间的基线差异。结果:在调整分析中,89.3%的FXa患者和76.0%的aPTT患者达到了各自检测的目标范围。总UFH持续时间(4.0 vs 4.0天,p = .239)和最大体重调整UFH剂量(9.3 vs 9.4 U/hr/kg, p = .823)在调整FXa和aPTT队列之间保持可比性。此外,住院死亡率(50.3%对33.9%,p = .133)、大出血事件(20.6%对11.2%,p = .292)和血栓栓塞事件(30.1%对30.1%,p = .998)无显著差异。体外循环血栓形成和插管部位出血是两组中最常见的事件。多因素logistic回归发现,FXa策略对于大出血或血栓栓塞的复合结局不是一个显著的危险因素(or [95% CI]: 1.539 [0.575, 4.116], p = 0.393)。结论:在我们机构的成人VA-ECLS患者中,无论采用何种UFH监测策略,出血和血栓栓塞并发症的发生率相似。有必要在更大、机构更多样化的人群中进行进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Unfractionated heparin monitoring by anti-factor Xa versus activated partial thromboplastin time strategies during venoarterial extracorporeal life support.

Introduction: No clear guidelines exist for unfractionated heparin (UFH) monitoring in adult patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) for refractory cardiogenic shock. In this study, we sought to compare outcomes between anti-factor Xa (FXa) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) strategies for UFH monitoring during VA-ECLS.

Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective review of VA-ECLS patients who received UFH in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit between July 2019 and November 2023. Standard protocol for UFH titration was aPTT goal of 45-60 sec (n = 52) before September 2021, then transitioned to FXa goal of 0.1-0.2 U/mL (n = 50) thereafter. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline differences between cohorts.

Results: In adjusted analyses, 89.3% of FXa patients and 76.0% of aPTT patients achieved goal range for their respective assay. Total UFH duration (4.0 vs 4.0 days, p = .239) and maximum weight-adjusted UFH dose (9.3 vs 9.4 U/hr/kg, p = .823) remained comparable between adjusted FXa and aPTT cohorts. Moreover, in-hospital mortality (50.3% vs 33.9%, p = .133), major bleeding events (20.6% vs 11.2%, p = .292), and thromboembolic events (30.1% vs 30.1%, p = .998) were not significantly different. Extracorporeal circuit thrombosis and cannula site bleeding were the most frequent events in both groups. Multivariate logistic regression found the FXa strategy was not a significant risk factor for the composite outcome of major bleeding or thromboembolism (OR [95% CI]: 1.539 [0.575, 4.116], p = .393).

Conclusions: In adult VA-ECLS patients at our institution, bleeding and thromboembolic complications occurred at a similar rate regardless of which UFH monitoring strategy was utilized. Further studies in larger and more institutionally diverse cohorts are warranted.

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
Perfusion-Uk
Perfusion-Uk 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Perfusion is an ISI-ranked, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, which provides current information on all aspects of perfusion, oxygenation and biocompatibility and their use in modern cardiac surgery. The journal is at the forefront of international research and development and presents an appropriately multidisciplinary approach to perfusion science.
期刊最新文献
Buttock ischemia in adults with femoral venoarterial-extracorporeal membranoxygenation - A single center experience. Evaluation of the impact of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) oxygenator shunt flow on neonatal hemolysis: An in vitro study. Exploring the experiences of cardiovascular perfusionists during philanthropic cardiac surgery in low-income countries. Thanks to reviewers. The influence of cardiopulmonary bypass residual volume processing technique on blood management in cardiac surgical patients.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1