Clinical experience with nadroparin in patients undergoing dialysis for renal impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dialysis procedures are life-sustaining renal replacement therapies indicated for patients with limited or no kidney function. The formation of clots in the extracorporeal circuit during dialysis is an undesirable event. Anticoagulation is therefore routinely practiced in this context. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is largely used in dialysis patients. However, except in patients with an elevated risk of bleeding, the 2002 European Best Practice Guidelines Expert Group on Hemodialysis recommended the use of low-molecular-weight heparins over UFH, in view of their equal efficacy, improved safety, and easy handling. Low-molecular-weight heparins comprise several drugs, differing in a number of pharmacological and clinical properties. This manuscript reviews the data obtained with nadroparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin studied extensively in dialysis patients. Thus, several studies investigated the benefit of nadroparin vs. UFH, other low-molecular-weight heparins, or citrate in patients undergoing intermittent hemodialysis. Overall, they showed that a single intravenous bolus dose of nadroparin, adjusted according to body weight, was effective and safe for maintaining the patency of the extracorporeal circuit during intermittent hemodialysis sessions lasting up to 6 hours, in both adults and children with end-stage renal failure. In contrast to UFH, nadroparin required no laboratory monitoring of anticoagulant activity owing to the reliable anticoagulant response following its administration. Compared with UFH, nadroparin was beneficial in terms of lipid and possibly bone parameters. Nadroparin administered by a bolus dose, followed by a continuous infusion was also shown to be effective and safe in patients undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".