Tinzaparin Versus Dalteparin for Peri-Procedure Thromboembolic Prophylaxis in Patients with Dialysis Dependent Renal Disease.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 3136 Poster Board III-73 Background Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) can be administered in fixed subcutaneous doses permitting predictable parenteral anticoagulation in an out-of-hospital setting. The renal clearance of LMWHs leads to uncertainty about the safety of use of LMWHs in patients on hemodialysis given the potential for bioaccumulation of anticoagulant effect which may lead to bleeding. Methods We conducted a randomized open label trial to investigate the feasibility and safety of a perioperative anticoagulation protocol in hemodialysis patients comparing two LMWHs preparations as outpatient bridging therapy when warfarin is interrupted for invasive procedures. The primary objective of the study was to compare if tinzaparin and dalteparin differentially bioaccumulate in hemodialysis (HD) patients after three therapeutic doses. Warfarin therapy was discontinued in these patients 5 to 6 days prior to surgery. Patients were randomized to either 3 doses of tinzaparin (175 IU/kg/day) or dalteparin (200 IU/kg/day) with two dialyses in the interval between the first dose of study drug and inavsive procedure. Primary outcome was pre-dialysis anti-Xa levels 20-24hrs post third therapeutic LMWH dose to determine if these LMWHs accumulated in HD patients, and if they differentially accumulated. After procedure, patients received a daily prophylactic dose of tinzaparin (4500 IU) and dalteparin (5000 IU) for 3 to 4 days along with dialysis. Post- procedure pre- and post- dialysis anti-Xa levels were also monitored. Results Of 29 eligible and consenting patients, 17 patients (58.6%) received tinzaparin sodium and 12 patients (41.4%) received dalteparin sodium. Two patients were withdrawn prior to invasive procedure and the invasive procedures were canceled (1 for important bio-accumulation in the dalteparin arm; 1 for major bleed in the tinzaparin arm). Primary outcome anti-Xa samples were not analyzable in 2 patients (1 contaminated with heparin; 1 drawn too early). There was important and significant bioaccumulation in both study drug arms. The mean primary outcome pre-dialysis anti-Xa level 20-24hrs post third tinzaparin dose was 0.40 IU/ml (SD= 0.21). The mean primary outcome pre-dialysis anti-Xa level 20-24hrs post third dalteparin dose was 0.57 IU/ml (SD= 0.43). There was no statistically significant difference between the two study drug groups (student's t-test (p value = 0.33). Postoperatively 16/21 (76%) of patients tested had undetectable pre-dialysis anti-Xa levels 20-24hrs post prophylactic dose, with the remaining 5 patients having a mean anti-Xa level of 0.23 IU/ml (SD = 0.25). During subsequent follow-up, 2 patients experienced serious adverse events (one non-STEMI in patient who died of sepsis (tinzaparin group) and one upper extremity DVT (dalteparin group)). Conclusions Tinzaparin and Dalteparin significantly accumulate at therapeutic doses in HD patients with no statistically significant difference detected in accumulation between the drugs. Neither drug importantly accumulates at prophylactic doses in HD patients. “Bridging therapy” with LMWHs at therapeutic doses in patients on hemodialysis who require temporary interruption of warfarin for invasive procedures is risky and of uncertain risk benefit. Disclosures Rodger: Bayer: Research Funding; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomerieux: Research Funding; GTC Therapeutics: Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».