Dialyzer Performance During Hemodialysis Without Systemic Anticoagulation Using a Heparin-Grafted Dialyzer Combined With a Citrate-Enriched Dialysate: Results of the Randomized Crossover Noninferiority EvoCit Study

Detection and Scoring of Extracorporeal Circuit Clotting During Hemodialysis

Maintaining patency of the extracorporeal hemodialysis (HD) circuit is a prerequisite to perform HD. Unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparins are the most used anticoagulants in maintenance HD, but their administration comes with a major trade-off of bleeding complications. This narrative review article discusses technical factors impacting on HD circuit patency, such as tubings, dialyzer membranes, priming practices, and treatment settings. Strategies for monitoring extracorporeal circuit clotting during and after treatment are also reviewed, as these are essential tools for optimizing anticoagulation.

Clotting Propensity of Surface-Treated Membranes in a Hemodialysis Set-up That Avoids Systemic Anticoagulation

The development of biocompatible membranes, aiming to limit the inflammatory response, oxidative stress, and coagulability during hemodialysis, has been an important step in reducing dialysis-related adverse outcomes. This includes a reduction in the risk of clotting of the extracorporeal circuit, thus enabling hemodialysis with a reduced dose or even without systemic anticoagulant drugs in patients with an increased bleeding risk. In this article, we summarize the in vitro research and clinical evidence on the antithrombotic properties of vitamin E- and heparin-coated membranes.

Avoiding Systemic Heparinization During Hemodialysis: How the Dialysis Setup Might Help

Heparin is the most widely used anticoagulant for maintaining patency of the extracorporeal blood circuit during intermittent hemodialysis. Inadvertently, this leads to systemic heparinization of the patient. Repeated intermittent heparinization during hemodialysis has been associated with increased bleeding risks and metabolic and immunologic effects. Alternative strategies for minimizing systemic anticoagulation encompass dilution methods, regional citrate anticoagulation, priming of the extracorporeal circuit, and modifications to dialyzer membranes and dialysate composition. The effectiveness of these alternatives in maintaining patency of the extracorporeal circuit varies substantially. Although most studies have focused on particular changes in the hemodialysis setup, several combined interventions for adapting the hemodialysis setup are now being studied. This narrative review aims to present an overview of the current landscape of hemodialysis setup strategies aimed at limiting or avoiding systemic anticoagulation during treatment. Additionally, this review intends to shed light on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that contribute to variations observed in reported outcomes.

Regional Citrate Anticoagulation: A Tale of More Than Two Stories

Calcium is a key clotting factor, and several inorganic molecules that bind to calcium have been found to reduce the clotting propensity of blood. Citrate, a calcium chelator, is used as inhibitor of the coagulation cascade in blood transfusion. Also, it is used as an anaticoagulant during dialysis to maintain patency of the extracorporeal circuit, known as regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA). The amount of citrate should be chosen such that ionized calcium concentrations in the extracorporeal circuit are reduced enough to minimize propagation of the coagulation cascade. The dialytic removal of the calcium-citrate complexes combined with reduced ionized calcium concentrations makes necessary calcium supplementation of the blood returning to the patient. This can be achieved in different ways. In classical RCA, citrate and calcium are infused in the afferent and efferent tubing, respectively, whereas the dialysate does not contain calcium. This setup has been shown to be highly efficacious with a very low clotting propensity. Strict monitoring of blood electrolytes is required. Alternatively, the use of a high-calcium dialysate leads to calcium loading, obviating the need for a separate calcium infusion pump. The main advantages are simplified delivery of RCA and less fluctuation of systemic calcium concentrations. Currently, citric acid is sometimes added to the acid concentrate as a replacement for acetic acid. Differences and similarities between RCA and citrate-containing dialysate are discussed. RCA is an excellent alternative to heparin for patients at high risk of bleeding. Semin Nephrol 36:x-xx © 20XX Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Immunologic Effects of Heparin Associated With Hemodialysis: Focus on Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) is almost invariably performed with heparin, and thus HD patients are at risk of developing the immune-mediated adverse effect heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), caused by anti-platelet factor 4/heparin IgG, which strongly activates platelets. HIT patients develop hypercoagulability with greatly increased risk of thrombosis, both venous and arterial. Certain HIT-associated complications are more likely to develop among HD patients, including hemofilter thrombosis despite heparin, intravascular catheter and/or arteriovenous fistula-associated thrombosis, post-heparin bolus anaphylactoid/anaphylactic reactions, and thrombotic stroke and acute limb artery thrombosis (reflecting the high frequency of underlying arteriopathy in many patients with renal failure). Management of HIT in HD usually requires use of an alternative (non-heparin) anticoagulant; for example, danaparoid sodium (outside the USA) or argatroban (USA and elsewhere). Whether heparin-grafted hemodialyzers (without systemic heparin) can be used safely in acute HIT is unknown. The HIT immune response is remarkably transient and usually not retriggered by subsequent heparin administration. Accordingly, since renal failure patients often require long-term HD, there may be the opportunity-following seroreversion (loss of platelet-activating HIT antibodies)-to restart heparin for HD, a practice that appears to have a low likelihood of retriggering HIT.

Anticoagulation for people receiving long-term haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis (HD) requires safe and effective anticoagulation to prevent clot formation within the extracorporeal circuit during dialysis treatments to enable adequate dialysis and minimise adverse events, including major bleeding. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may provide a more predictable dose, reliable anticoagulant effects and be simpler to administer than unfractionated heparin (UFH) for HD anticoagulation, but may accumulate in the kidneys and lead to bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation strategies (including both heparin and non-heparin drugs) for long-term HD in people with kidney failure. Any intervention preventing clotting within the extracorporeal circuit without establishing anticoagulation within the patient, such as regional citrate, citrate enriched dialysate, heparin-coated dialysers, pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (HDF), and saline flushes were also included.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to November 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled studies (quasi-RCTs) evaluating anticoagulant agents administered during HD treatment in adults and children with kidney failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. Treatment effects were estimated using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 113 studies randomising 4535 participants. The risk of bias in each study was adjudicated as high or unclear for most risk domains. Compared to UFH, LMWH had uncertain effects on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis (3 studies, 91 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.42; I2 = 8%; low certainty evidence), while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate anticoagulation may lower the risk of minor bleeding compared to UFH (2 studies, 82 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). No studies reported data comparing regional citrate to UFH on risks of extracorporeal circuit thrombosis and major bleeding. The effects of very LMWH, danaparoid, prostacyclin, direct thrombin inhibitors, factor XI inhibitors or heparin-grafted membranes were uncertain due to insufficient data. The effects of different LMWH, different doses of LMWH, and the administration of LMWH anticoagulants using inlet versus outlet bloodline or bolus versus infusion were uncertain. Evidence to compare citrate to another citrate or control was scant. The effects of UFH compared to no anticoagulant therapy or different doses of UFH were uncertain. Death, dialysis vascular access outcomes, blood transfusions, measures of anticoagulation effect, and costs of interventions were rarely reported. No studies evaluated the effects of treatment on non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospital admissions. Adverse events were inconsistently and rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulant strategies, including UFH and LMWH, have uncertain comparative risks on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis, while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate may decrease minor bleeding, but the effects on major bleeding and extracorporeal circuit thrombosis were not reported. Evidence supporting clinical decision-making for different forms of anticoagulant strategies for HD is of low and very low certainty, as available studies have not been designed to measure treatment effects on important clinical outcomes.

Advances in Enhancing Hemocompatibility of Hemodialysis Hollow-Fiber Membranes

Hemodialysis, the most common modality of renal replacement therapy, is critically required to remove uremic toxins from the blood of patients with end-stage kidney disease. However, the chronic inflammation, oxidative stress as well as thrombosis induced by the long-term contact of hemoincompatible hollow-fiber membranes (HFMs) contribute to the increase in cardiovascular diseases and mortality in this patient population. This review first retrospectively analyzes the current clinical and laboratory research progress in improving the hemocompatibility of HFMs. Details on different HFMs currently in clinical use and their design are described. Subsequently, we elaborate on the adverse interactions between blood and HFMs, involving protein adsorption, platelet adhesion and activation, and the activation of immune and coagulation systems, and the focus is on how to improve the hemocompatibility of HFMs in these aspects. Finally, challenges and future perspectives for improving the hemocompatibility of HFMs are also discussed to promote the development and clinical application of new hemocompatible HFMs.

Graphical Abstract

Targeting circulating high mobility group box-1 and histones by extracorporeal blood purification as an immunomodulation strategy against critical illnesses

Both high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1) and histones are major damage-associated molecular patterns (DAPMs) that mediate lethal systemic inflammation, activation of the complement and coagulation system, endothelial injury and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in critical illnesses. Although accumulating evidence collectively shows that targeting HMGB1 or histones by their specific antibodies or inhibitors could significantly mitigate aberrant immune responses in multiple critically ill animal models, routine clinical use of such agents is still not recommended by any guideline. In contrast, extracorporeal blood purification, which has been widely used to replace dysfunctional organs and remove exogenous or endogenous toxins in intensive care units, may also exert an immunomodulatory effect by eliminating inflammatory mediators such as cytokines, endotoxin, HMGB1 and histones in patients with critical illnesses. In this review, we summarize the multiple immunopathological roles of HMGB1 and histones in mediating inflammation, immune thrombosis and organ dysfunction and discuss the rationale for the removal of these DAMPs using various hemofilters. The latest preclinical and clinical evidence for the use of extracorporeal blood purification to improve the clinical outcome of critically ill patients by targeting circulating HMGB1 and histones is also gathered.

Comparison of the injection of low-molecular weight heparin in the arterial vs. venous blood line for preventing extracorporeal circuit clotting during hemodialysis

Low-molecular weight heparins (LMWH) are widely used for preventing clotting during hemodialysis (HD). Although injection in the venous blood line is recommended to avoid initial loss of LMWH through the dialyzer, LMWH is still frequently administered in the arterial blood line at the start of dialysis. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the same enoxaparin dose administered through the venous blood line or arterial blood line. We also evaluated antifactor Xa (aXa) activity according to the injection route and dialysis modalities: high-flux (HF) HD, medium cut-off (MCO) HD, and online hemodiafiltration (OL-HDF). Forty-three patients were studied over 18 consecutive dialysis sessions using a fixed enoxaparin dose (20 or 40 mg), first administered through the arterial blood line bolus and then through the venous blood line for another 18 sessions. Compared to arterial blood line administration, venous blood line bolus resulted in a significant increase in median post-dialysis aXa activity: 0.16 (0.1-0.6) IU/ml versus 0.31 (0.1-1.3) IU/ml, respectively, p = 0.006. After arterial blood line bolus of 40 mg enoxaparin, median post-dialysis aXa activity was significantly lower with OL-HDF compared to HF-HD: 0.14 (0.1-0.35) versus 0.32 (0.15-0.49), p = 0.02. A trend for lower clotting within lines and bubble trap using venous blood line bolus was observed. In conclusion, venous blood line enoxaparin injection is safe in OL-HDF patients. However, in HF-HD and MCO-HD, venous blood line injection of 40 mg enoxaparin may increase overdosing risk. Thus, aXa activity should be monitored in HF-HD and MCO-HD patients at risk of bleeding and/or on vitamin K antagonists and careful surveillance is required when administering a 40 mg enoxaparin dose through the venous blood line route.