...
首页> 外文期刊>Hemodialysis international >Alteplase vs. urokinase for occluded hemodialysis catheter: A randomized trial
【24h】

Alteplase vs. urokinase for occluded hemodialysis catheter: A randomized trial

机译:阿替普酶与尿激酶治疗闭塞性血液透析导管:一项随机试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Introduction Thrombosis of tunneled central venous catheters (CVC) in hemodialysis (HD) patients is common and it can lead to the elimination of vascular sites. To compare the efficacy of alteplase vs. urokinase in reestablishing adequate blood flow through completely occluded vascular catheters. Methods In this randomized study, patients with completely occluded tunneled HD catheters received 40 minutes intracatheter dwell with alteplase (1 mg/mL) or urokinase (5000 IU/mL). Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with occluded catheters achieving post-thrombolytic blood flow of 250 mL/min. Safety endpoints included the incidence of hemorrhagic and infectious complications. Findings Eligible adult patients (n=100) were treated with alteplase (n=44) or urokinase (n=56). The two groups were similar in gender (male: 51.8% vs. 56.8%, P=0.35), age (60 +/- 12 vs. 59 +/- 13 years, P=0.71), time on dialysis (678 +/- 203 vs. 548 +/- 189 days, P=0.77), diabetes and cardiovascular disease (55.6% vs. 70.4%, P=0.08 and 17.8% vs. 22.7%, P=0.38, respectively), jugular vein as main vascular access (54.8% vs. 62.5%, P=0.57), and time of CVC (278 +/- 63 vs. 218 +/- 59 days, P=0.67). Primary success with alteplase and urokinase occurred in 42/44 (95%) vs. 46/56 (82%), P=0.06. Success was not achieved after the second dose of alteplase and urokinase in 1 and 7 cases, respectively (2% vs. 12%, P=0.075). Serious adverse effects were not observed in both groups. There was no difference between the two groups in infectious complications (P=0.94). Discussion Alteplase and urokinase are effective thrombolytic agents for restoring HD catheter patency. Our study has revealed a likely slight superiority of alteplase over urokinase for unblocking central lines, but which has enrolled too few patients to be able to detect a difference of this size.
机译:简介血液透析(HD)患者的隧道中心静脉导管(CVC)血栓形成很常见,并且可以导致血管部位的消除。为了比较阿替普酶与尿激酶在通过完全闭塞的血管导管重建足够的血流中的功效。方法在这项随机研究中,完全阻塞HD导管的患者在导管内停留40分钟,并接受阿替普酶(1 mg / mL)或尿激酶(5000 IU / mL)。主要终点是达到溶栓后血流量为250 mL / min的被阻塞导管的患者比例。安全终点包括出血和感染并发症的发生率。研究结果用阿替普酶(n = 44)或尿激酶(n = 56)治疗了合格的成年患者(n = 100)。两组的性别相似(男性:51.8%vs. 56.8%,P = 0.35),年龄(60 +/- 12 vs. 59 +/- 13岁,P = 0.71),透析时间(678 + / -以颈静脉为主,糖尿病和心血管疾病(分别为203天与548 +/- 189天,P = 0.77),分别为55.6%对70.4%,P = 0.08和17.8%vs. 22.7%,P = 0.38血管通路(54.8%vs. 62.5%,P = 0.57)和CVC时间(278 +/- 63 vs. 218 +/- 59天,P = 0.67)。阿替普酶和尿激酶的主要成功率为42/44(95%)与46/56(82%),P = 0.06。分别在1例和7例中分别注射阿替普酶和尿激酶后,未获得成功(2%比12%,P = 0.075)。两组均未观察到严重的不良反应。两组的感染并发症没有差异(P = 0.94)。讨论Alteplase和尿激酶是恢复HD导管通畅的有效溶栓剂。我们的研究表明,阿替普酶在缓解中心线方面可能优于尿激酶,但其招募的患者太少,无法检测出这种大小的差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号