PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect and safety of citrate versus heparin anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in critically ill patients by performing a meta-analysis of updated evidence. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible studies, and manual searches were also performed to identify additional trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of citrate versus heparin anticoagulation for CRRT were considered eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs with 992 patients and 1998 circuits met the inclusion criteria. Heparin was regionally delivered in two trials and systemically delivered in nine trials. Citrate for CRRT significantly reduced the risk of circuit loss compared to regional (HR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.35–0.77, P = 0.001) and systemic (HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.59–0.98, P = 0.04) heparin. Citrate also reduced the incidence of filter failure (RR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The citrate group had a significantly lower bleeding risk than the systemic heparin group (RR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.21–0.60, P < 0.001) and a similar bleeding risk to the regional heparin group (RR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.01–8.24, P = 0.51). The incidences of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and hypocalcemia were increased in the heparin and citrate groups, respectively. No significant survival difference was observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lower risk of circuit loss, filter failure, bleeding, and HIT, regional citrate should be considered a better anticoagulation method than heparin for CRRT in critically ill patients without any contraindication.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect and safety of citrate versus heparin anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in critically illpatients by performing a meta-analysis of updated evidence. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible studies, and manual searches were also performed to identify additional trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of citrate versus heparin anticoagulation for CRRT were considered eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs with 992 patients and 1998 circuits met the inclusion criteria. Heparin was regionally delivered in two trials and systemically delivered in nine trials. Citrate for CRRT significantly reduced the risk of circuit loss compared to regional (HR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.35–0.77, P = 0.001) and systemic (HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.59–0.98, P = 0.04) heparin. Citrate also reduced the incidence of filter failure (RR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The citrate group had a significantly lower bleeding risk than the systemic heparin group (RR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.21–0.60, P < 0.001) and a similar bleeding risk to the regional heparin group (RR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.01–8.24, P = 0.51). The incidences of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and hypocalcemia were increased in the heparin and citrate groups, respectively. No significant survival difference was observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Given the lower risk of circuit loss, filter failure, bleeding, and HIT, regional citrate should be considered a better anticoagulation method than heparin for CRRT in critically illpatients without any contraindication.
Authors: Peter Faybik; Hubert Hetz; Gerfried Mitterer; Claus Georg Krenn; Judith Schiefer; Georg-Christian Funk; Andreas Bacher Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Alex J Sutton; John P A Ioannidis; Norma Terrin; David R Jones; Joseph Lau; James Carpenter; Gerta Rücker; Roger M Harbord; Christopher H Schmid; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Jonathan J Deeks; Jaime Peters; Petra Macaskill; Guido Schwarzer; Sue Duval; Douglas G Altman; David Moher; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-22
Authors: Caroline Schultheiß; Bernd Saugel; Veit Phillip; Philipp Thies; Sebastian Noe; Ulrich Mayr; Bernhard Haller; Henrik Einwächter; Roland M Schmid; Wolfgang Huber Journal: Crit Care Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: M Schmitz; M Joannidis; D Czock; S John; A Jörres; S J Klein; M Oppert; V Schwenger; J Kielstein; A Zarbock; D Kindgen-Milles; C Willam Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 0.840
Authors: Sean M Bagshaw; Michael Darmon; Marlies Ostermann; Fredric O Finkelstein; Ron Wald; Ashita J Tolwani; Stuart L Goldstein; David J Gattas; Shigehiko Uchino; Eric A Hoste; Stephane Gaudry Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Rinaldo Bellomo; Claudio Ronco; Ravindra L Mehta; Pierre Asfar; Julie Boisramé-Helms; Michael Darmon; Jean-Luc Diehl; Jacques Duranteau; Eric A J Hoste; Joannes-Boyau Olivier; Matthieu Legrand; Nicolas Lerolle; Manu L N G Malbrain; Johan Mårtensson; Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten; Jean-Jacques Parienti; Didier Payen; Sophie Perinel; Esther Peters; Peter Pickkers; Eric Rondeau; Miet Schetz; Christophe Vinsonneau; Julia Wendon; Ling Zhang; Pierre-François Laterre Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Elie Azoulay; Peter Schellongowski; Michael Darmon; Philippe R Bauer; Dominique Benoit; Pieter Depuydt; Jigeeshu V Divatia; Virginie Lemiale; Maarten van Vliet; Anne-Pascale Meert; Djamel Mokart; Stephen M Pastores; Anders Perner; Frédéric Pène; Peter Pickkers; Kathryn A Puxty; Francois Vincent; Jorge Salluh; Ayman O Soubani; Massimo Antonelli; Thomas Staudinger; Michael von Bergwelt-Baildon; Marcio Soares Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 17.440