Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Nafamostat mesylate versus regional citrate anticoagulation for chronic hemodialysis in patients at high risk of bleeding: a single-center, retrospective study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Nafamostat mesylate versus regional citrate anticoagulation for chronic hemodialysis in patients at high risk of bleeding: a single-center, retrospective study
Do you wish to request the book?
Nafamostat mesylate versus regional citrate anticoagulation for chronic hemodialysis in patients at high risk of bleeding: a single-center, retrospective study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Nafamostat mesylate versus regional citrate anticoagulation for chronic hemodialysis in patients at high risk of bleeding: a single-center, retrospective study
2025
Overview
For hemodialysis patients at high risk of bleeding, a regional anticoagulant can be used, such as citrate or nafamostat mesylate (NM). The objective of this study was to evaluate NM as an alternative to citrate for anticoagulation in hemodialysis patients at high risk of bleeding.
This retrospective single-center study included consecutive patients in our dialysis center treated with either citrate or NM anticoagulation for hemodialysis from January 2022 to December 2023.The primary outcome was major clotting, defined as premature dialysis due to extracorporeal circuit clotting. The secondary outcome was the incidence of a major bleeding episode during or after hemodialysis.
In total, 651hemodialysis sessions were performed in 196 patients and were compared (289 citrate and 362 NM anticoagulation). A lower number of premature dialysis due to clotting occurred in the NM sessions compared to citrate sessions (0.84% vs.5.19%,
= 0.001). NM was associated with a lower risk of major clotting compared with citrate during treatment (OR:0.063; CI: 0.008-0.475;
= 0.007). Regarding second outcome, no more major bleeding events related to NM occurred compared to citrate.
Among hemodialysis patients with high risk of bleeding, anticoagulation with NM, compared with citrate anticoagulation, provided relatively better efficacy, with no bleeding increment. NM is a valid alternative to citrate for hemodialysis patients at high risk of bleeding.
Publisher
Taylor & Francis,Taylor & Francis Group
Subject
/ Anticoagulants - administration & dosage
/ Anticoagulants - adverse effects
/ Anticoagulants - therapeutic use
/ Benzamidines - adverse effects
/ citrate
/ Citric Acid - administration & dosage
/ Citric Acid - adverse effects
/ Citric Acid - therapeutic use
/ Female
/ Guanidines - adverse effects
/ Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis
/ Hemorrhage - chemically induced
/ Hemorrhage - prevention & control
/ Humans
/ Kidney Failure, Chronic - therapy
/ Male
