PURPOSE: During continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), anticoagulation of the extracorporeal circuit is required. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nafamostat mesilate, a serine protease inhibitor, compared with heparin. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 222 patients treated with CRRT in the intensive care unit (ICU). Clinical and filter-related data were extracted. RESULTS: We reviewed the medical records of the patients treated with CRRT. Initial anticoagulation methods were 56 heparin and 25 nafamostat mesilate; 10 patients received infused heparin systemically, and 131 patients were treated without anticoagulation. Total number of filters used was 1,236. Median filter lifespan with nafamostat mesilate was significantly greater than heparin (24.3 vs. 17.5 hours, p<0.001) and Kaplan-Meier survival plots revealed the longer survival of the circuits using nafamostat mesilate than heparin or without anticoagulation. In Cox proportional hazard models, nafamostat mesilate predicted longer filter survival. Although nafamostat mesilate induced activated partial thromboplastin time prolongation in 11 circuits (5.4%), bleeding episodes were not increased. CONCLUSIONS: Nafamostat mesilate anticoagulation was associated with prolonged filter survival compared with heparin. These data suggest that nafamostat mesilate is a good choice for anticoagulant with prolonged filter survival during CRRT in critically ill patients.
PURPOSE: During continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), anticoagulation of the extracorporeal circuit is required. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nafamostat mesilate, a serine protease inhibitor, compared with heparin. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 222 patients treated with CRRT in the intensive care unit (ICU). Clinical and filter-related data were extracted. RESULTS: We reviewed the medical records of the patients treated with CRRT. Initial anticoagulation methods were 56 heparin and 25 nafamostat mesilate; 10 patients received infused heparin systemically, and 131 patients were treated without anticoagulation. Total number of filters used was 1,236. Median filter lifespan with nafamostat mesilate was significantly greater than heparin (24.3 vs. 17.5 hours, p<0.001) and Kaplan-Meier survival plots revealed the longer survival of the circuits using nafamostat mesilate than heparin or without anticoagulation. In Cox proportional hazard models, nafamostat mesilate predicted longer filter survival. Although nafamostat mesilate induced activated partial thromboplastin time prolongation in 11 circuits (5.4%), bleeding episodes were not increased. CONCLUSIONS:Nafamostat mesilate anticoagulation was associated with prolonged filter survival compared with heparin. These data suggest that nafamostat mesilate is a good choice for anticoagulant with prolonged filter survival during CRRT in critically illpatients.
Authors: Brian F Niemeyer; Caitlin M Miller; Carmen Ledesma-Feliciano; James H Morrison; Rocio Jimenez-Valdes; Clarissa Clifton; Eric M Poeschla; Kambez H Benam Journal: Nano Sel Date: 2021-06-30
Authors: Jae Ha Lee; Jin Han Park; Ji Hoon Jang; Se Hun Kim; Sung Yong Hong; Woon Heo; Dong-Hwan Lee; Hye Sook Choi; Ki Hoon Kim; Hang-Jea Jang Journal: Acute Crit Care Date: 2022-04-20