Risk for excessive anticoagulation during hemodialysis is associated with type of vascular access and bedside coagulation testing: Results of a cross-sectional study.

Background: Recommendations and practice patterns for heparin dosing during hemodialysis show substantial heterogeneity and are scantly supported by evidence. This study assessed the variability in unfractionated heparin (UFH) dosing during hemodialysis and its clinical and biological anticoagulatory effects, and identified explanatory factors of heparin dosing. Methods: Cross-sectional study assessing UFH dosing, coagulation tests - activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and activated clotting time (ACT) before dialysis start, 1 h after start and at treatment end (4 h) - and measurement of residual blood compartment volume of used dialyzers. Results: 101 patients, 58% male, with a median dialysis vintage of 33 (6-71) months received hemodialysis using a total UFH dose of 9,306 ± 4,079 (range 3,000-23,050) IU/session. Use of a dialysis catheter (n = 56, 55%) was associated with a 1.4 times higher UFH dose (p < 0.001) irrespective of prior access function. aPTT increased significantly more than ACT both 1 h and 4 h after dialysis start, independent of the dialysis access used. 53% of patients with catheter access and ACT ratio < 1.5, 1 h after dialysis start had simultaneous aPTT ratios > 2.5. Similar findings were present at 1 h for patients with AVF/AVG and at dialysis end for catheter use. No clinically significant clotting of the extracorporeal circuit was noted during the studied sessions. Dialyzer's blood compartment volume was reduced with a median of 9% (6-20%) without significant effect of UFH dose, aPTT or ACT measurements and vascular access type. Conclusion: UFH dose adaptations based on ACT measurements frequently result in excessive anticoagulation according to aPTT results. Higher doses of UFH are used in patients with hemodialysis catheters without evidence that this reduces dialyzer clotting.

Dialyzer Performance During Hemodialysis Without Systemic Anticoagulation Using a Heparin-Grafted Dialyzer Combined With a Citrate-Enriched Dialysate: Results of the Randomized Crossover Noninferiority EvoCit Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The EvoCit study was designed to evaluate performance of a heparin-grafted dialyzer during hemodialysis with and without systemic anticoagulation. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial. Noninferiority was defined as a difference of≤10% for the primary outcome. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Single hemodialysis center; 26 prevalent patients treated with 617 hemodialysis sessions. INTERVENTIONS: Hemodialysis using a heparin-grafted dialyzer combined with a 1.0mmol/L citrate-enriched dialysate ("EvoCit") without systemic anticoagulation compared with hemodialysis performed with a heparin-grafted dialyzer with systemic heparin ("EvoHep"). Patients were randomly allocated to a first period of 4 weeks and crossed over to the alternative strategy for a second period of 4 weeks. OUTCOMES: The primary end point was the difference in Kt/Vurea between EvoCit and EvoHep. Secondary end points were urea reduction ratio, middle molecule removal, treatment time, thrombin generation, and reduction in dialyzer blood compartment volume. RESULTS: The estimated difference in Kt/Vurea between EvoCit and EvoHep was-0.03 (95% CI, -0.06 to-0.007), establishing noninferiority with mean Kt/Vurea of 1.47±0.05 (SE) for EvoCit and 1.50±0.05 for EvoHep. Noninferiority was also established for reduction ratios of urea and ß2-microglobulin. Premature discontinuation of dialysis was required for 4.2% of sessions among 6 patients during EvoCit and no sessions during EvoHep. Effective treatment time was 236±5 minutes for EvoCit and 238±1 minutes for EvoHep. Thrombin generation was increased and there was greater reduction in dialyzer blood compartment volume after treatments with EvoCit compared with EvoHep. LIMITATIONS: The effects of avoiding systemic anticoagulation on clinical outcomes were not evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: EvoCit is noninferior to EvoHep with respect to solute clearance but results in a greater number of shortened treatments, more membrane clotting, and greater thrombin generation TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT03887468.

Hepatitis B virus reactivation during belatacept treatment after kidney transplantation.

We report a case of HBV reactivation following belatacept treatment in a patient who underwent kidney transplantation in 2015 for HIV-associated nephropathy (HIVAN). Human immunodeficiency virus viral load was undetectable prior to transplantation, and CD4+ lymphocyte count was greater than 300/mL. Baseline HBV serology at transplantation was HBsAg negative, anti-HBcAb positive, anti-HBsAb 312 UI/L, and HBeAg negative/anti-HBeAb positive. Liver function tests were normal, and viral DNA was undetectable. Two years later, the patient presented with severe acute hepatitis after a progressive disappearance of anti-HbsAb, quickly followed by HBV reactivation. Immunosuppressive treatment was drastically reduced, and treatment with entecavir was started. The outcome was favorable, and HBV DNA became undetectable after 9 weeks of treatment. This is the first report of acute hepatitis related to HBV reactivation in a kidney transplant recipient treated with belatacept. The risk for HBV reactivation in patients treated with belatacept should not be underestimated, especially in those with resolved HBV infection.