Pediatr Res. 2024 Mar 30. doi: 10.1038/s41390-024-03163-x. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BAKCGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of citrate versus heparin anticoagulation for CRRT in critically-ill children.
METHODS: This retrospective comparative cohort reviewed the clinical records of critically-ill children undergoing CRRT with either RCA or systemic heparin anticoagulation. The primary outcome measure was hemofilter survival time. Secondary outcomes included the comparison of complications and metabolic disorders.
RESULTS: A total of 131 patients (55 RCA and 76 systemic heparin) were included, in which a cumulative number of 280 hemofilters were used (115 in RCA with 5762 h total CRRT time, and 165 in systemic heparin with 6230 h total CRRT time). Hemofilter survival was significantly longer for RCA (51.0 h; IQR: 24-67 h) compared to systemic heparin (29.5 h; IQR, 17-48 h) (p = 0.002). Clotting-related hemofilter failure occurred in 9.6% of the RCA group compared to 19.6% in the systemic heparin group (p = 0.038). Citrate accumulation occurred in 4 (3.5%) of 115 RCA sessions. Hypocalcemia and metabolic alkalosis episodes were significantly more frequent in RCA recipients (35.7% vs 15.2%, p < 0.0001; 33.0% vs 19.4%, p = 0.009).
CONCLUSION: RCA is a safe and effective anticoagulation method for CRRT in critically-ill children and it prolongs hemofilter survival.
IMPACT: RCA is superior to systemic heparin for the prolongation of circuit survival (overall and for clotting-related loss) during CRRT. These data indicate that RCA can be used to maximize the effective delivery of CRRT in critically-ill patients admitted to the PICU. There are potential cost-saving implications from our results owing to benefits such as less circuit downtime and fewer circuit changes.
PMID:38555381 | DOI:10.1038/s41390-024-03163-x
