• Yanling Yin, Congcong Zhao, Zhenjie Hu, Shuyan Wei, and Yan Huo.
• Department of Critical Care Medicine, the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050011, Hebei, China.Corresponding author: Hu Zhenjie, Email: syicu@vip.sina.com.
• Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2015 May 1; 27 (5): 343-8.

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether AN69 ST membrane would prolong filter lifetime in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) without anticoagulation in patients with high risk of bleeding.MethodsA single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind control trial with crossover design was conducted. From March 1st to December 31st in 2013, patients who were admitted to Department of Critical Care Medicine of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University meeting CRRT treatment indications, but could not receive systemic anticoagulation because of high risk of bleeding were studied. The selected patients were randomly divided into two groups according to a random number table, and four filters consisting of two AN69 ST100 membrane filters (A) and two traditional AN69 M100 membrane filters (B) were used for them. Group I with the filter order of A-B-A-B, and group II with the order of B-A-B-A. The clinical data of patients was recorded in detail, and conventional AN69 ST and AN69 membrane filter lifetime, their influence on coagulability, and the incidence of bleeding complications were compared.ResultsSeventeen patients were enrolled, with 10 in groupI, and 7 in group II. The basic medical characteristics including gender, age, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II ( APAECH II) score, sequential organ failure score (SOFA), Acute Renal Injury Network (AKIN) stage, activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), prothrombin time (PT), international normalized ratio (INR), platelet count (PLT), and use of mechanical ventilation were not significantly different between two groups. But the use of vasoactive drug was more frequent in group IIcompared with that of group I[ 100.0% (7/7) vs. 30.0% (3/10), χ² = 8.330, P = 0.010]. AN69 ST filter lifetime (n = 34) was (15.92±2.10) hours, there was no statistically significant difference compared with that of AN69 membrane (t = 0.088, P = 0.942), filter lifetime of which (n = 34) was (16.12±1.38) hours. It was also found by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis that there was no significant difference between the two membrane filter lifetime (χ² =1.589, P = 0.208). Logistic regression analysis showed that the life of the first filter was not correlated with coagulation indicators, including APTT, PT, INR, and PLT [ APTT: odds ratio (OR) = 0.977, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 0.892-1.071, P = 0.623; PT: OR = 1.001, 95%CI = 0.901-1.109, P = 0.988; INR: OR = 1.078, 95%CI = 0.348-3.340, P = 0.896; PLT: OR = 0.996, 95%CI = 0.974-1.019, P = 0.735]. The application rate of vasoactive drugs, which was different between two groups for basic medical indications showed no effect on filter life time (OR = 2.541, 95%CI = 0.239-26.955, P = 0.439). Reasons of clotting in filters were also analyzed, and it was found that blood coagulation in the filter ranked the top (88.2%), and the other reasons were catheter-related problems, death, and unscheduled transport. No difference in blood coagulation function was found in both groups after treatment for 12 hours, and there was no bleeding complication.ConclusionsDuring the CRRT without systemic anticoagulant, both surface-treatment with polyethyleneimine AN69 and AN69 ST membrane cannot prolong filter lifetime.

12 keywords...

hide…