Hemodialysis Using Heparin Bound Hemophan Hemodialysis in ESRD Patients at High Risk for Bleeding: A Seven-Year Experience.
- Author:
Su Jin YOON
1
;
Beom KIM
;
Hyun Hee LEE
;
Young Ki LEE
;
Woo Heon KANG
;
Jung Ah KIM
;
Bang Hoon LEE
;
Ho Myoung YEO
;
Young Hwan LIM
;
Hyun Jeong BAEK
;
Wooseong HUH
;
Kyu Beck LEE
;
Yoon Ha LEE
;
Dae Joong KIM
;
Yoon Goo KIM
;
Ha Young OH
Author Information
1. Department of Internal Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University, College of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Korea. ygkim@smc.samsung.co.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Hemodialysis;
Anticoagulation;
Heparin;
Hemophan
- MeSH:
Dialysis;
Hemorrhage*;
Heparin*;
Humans;
Kidney Failure, Chronic*;
Membranes;
Partial Thromboplastin Time;
Renal Dialysis*;
Urea
- From:Korean Journal of Nephrology
2003;22(4):389-396
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: Positively charged N, N-diethyl-aminoehtyl groups on Hemophan enable negative charged heparin to be bound with the dialyzer membrane and hemodialysis using heparin bound Hemophan (HBH- HD) could be a hemodialysis modality in patients at risk of bleeding. We designed simplified heparin binding technique and evaluated the bleeding risk and efficiency of HBH-HD in chronic renal failure patients at risk of bleeding. METHODS: During the period from April 1995 through April 2002, 159 patients at high bleeding risk received 1057 HBH-HD (dialyzer: GFS plus 11, Gambro). The duration of each HBH-HD was standardized to 4 hours at blood-flow rate of 200-250 mL/min. To evaluate safety of HBH-HD, we measured serum heparin concentration (HC) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) at baseline, 15, 60, 120 minutes and endpoint (240 minutes) (n= 40). To evaluate the dialysis efficiency, HBH-HD and routine hemodialysis with systemic heparinization (R-HD) were compared for total blood compartment volume (TBCV) loss, dialyzer urea clearance (K) and Kt/V in same study group patients (n=20). RESULTS: Clotting of dialyzer necessitating termination of dialysis occurred in 11 (1.0%) out of 1, 057 dialyses at 150 minutes, and clotting requiring change of blood line occurred in 64 dialyses (6.1%) between 150 and 230 minutes. There was a slight increase in the aPTT (mean+/-SD, 49.8+/-10.5 sec) and HC (0.14+/-0.06 U/mL) at 15 min, compared to predialysis levels of 44.3+/-12.9 sec and 0.11+/-0.06 U/ mL, respectively (p>0.05). But no increase in aPTT, HC was observed in measurements at 60 min, 120 min, and at the endpoint. TBCV loss was significantly higher in HBH-HD (mean+/-SD, 17.2+/-9.6%), compared to R-HD (2.8+/-1.2%) (p< 0.0001). However, K and Kt/V value (mean+/-SD) were 136.9+/-14.6 mL/ min and 1.27+/-0.21 in HBH-HD and 137.6+/-18.4 mL/ min and 1.20+/-0.22 in R-HD, showing no significant difference (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: HBH-HD could be a safe and efficient HD technique in patients at high risk of bleeding. Extracorporeal clotting, however, should be observed carefully during HBH-HD.
