查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- Effectiveness of Activated Clotting Time in Monitoring Heparin Dosage during Hemodialysis
- A Low Molecular Weight Heparin (Fragmin) in Reused Dialyzer for Hemodialysis
- Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Hypercholesterolemic Patients Receiving Long-Term Hemodialysis
- 長期血液透析患者的多次自發性後腹腔出血:一病例報告
- 低分子量肝素於血液透析的應用
- 低分子量肝素在血液透析的應用
- 低分子量肝素與血液透析
- Tinzaparin (Innohep®), A Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin, Reduces Complications of Standard Heparin in Hemodialysis Patients
- 肝素及Ticlopidine於犬血液透析之抗凝研究
- 肝素及低分子量肝素對急性肺栓塞的治療
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | Effectiveness of Activated Clotting Time in Monitoring Heparin Dosage during Hemodialysis=使用活化凝血時間監測血液透析時肝素劑量之有效性評估 |
---|---|
作 者 | 呂至剛; 江守山; | 書刊名 | 臺灣腎臟醫學會雜誌 |
卷 期 | 22:1 2008.03[民97.03] |
頁 次 | 頁56-58+79 |
分類號 | 415.816 |
關鍵詞 | 血液透析; 低分子量肝素; 肝素; 活化凝血時間; Hemodialysis; Low molecular weight heparin; Activated clotting time; Heparin; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 背景和目的:血液透析病人需要快速簡單的方法用以監測肝素使用劑量。本研究比較APTT(活化部分凝血活脢時間),anti-Xa activity(抗凝血因子十活性),及ACT(活化凝血時間)三種檢測方法,監測傳統肝素或低分子量肝素劑量的準確度。方法:十八位病人接受低分子量肝素注射,於血液透析治療開始時一次注射。另有二十位病人接受傳統肝素注射,於血液透析治療開始時先給予一次起始劑量,並於血液透析進行時持續給予維持劑量。結果:十八位使用低分子量肝素病人的平均使用劑量為961±409 IU,血中anti-Xa activity的平均數值自透析前的0.03±0.04 IU/ml曾加至透析開始後兩小時的0.21±0.15 IU/ml (P<0.01);APTT的平均數值自透析前的37.0±3.6秒增加至透析開始後兩小時的41.4±5.7秒(增加百分之十一,p<0.01);而ACT於透析前及透析開始後兩小時的平均數值並無明顯差別(透析前190±18秒,透析開始後兩小時188±19秒,p>0.05)。二十位使用傳統肝素病人的平均使用劑量為2325±591 IU,血中APTT的平均數值自透析前的33.7±3.2秒增加至透析開始後兩小時的46.3±12.8秒(增加百分之三十七,p<0.01);血中ACT的平均數值則自透析前的177±24秒增加至透析開始後兩小時的189±17秒(增加百分之六點七,p<001)。透析前後ACT數值的差異不大,臨床使用時可能會有判讀上的困難。結論:不論於血液透析時使用傳統肝素或低分子量肝素,ACT(活化凝血時間)都可能不是一個很好的監測工具。 |
英文摘要 | Background and Purpose: A rapid and cheap bedside test for heparin monitoring is needed for hemodialysis patients. We compared the efficacy of activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) activity, and activated clotting time (ACT) in monitoring the anticoagulation effect of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Methods: In patients using LMWH (n=18), a bolus injection of LMWH was given at the start of a hemodialysis session. In patients using UFH (n=20), a bolus of UFH at the start of dialysis was followed by a hemodialysis session. In patients using UFH (n=20), a bolus of UFH at start of dialysis was followed by a maintenance dosage throughout dialysis (mean total dosage 2325±591 IU). Results: In patients using LMWH, the mean total LMWH dosage was 961±409 IU. The mean value of plasma anti-Xa activity increased from 0.03±0.04 IU/ml before dialysis to 0.21±0.15 IU/ml after 2 hours of dialysis; the change in mean value of APTT was from 37.0±3.6 seconds before dialysis to 41.4±5.7 seconds (an 11% increase) after 2 hours of dialysis. No significant change in ACT was noted throughout the whole study period (from 190±18 seconds before dialysis to 188±19 seconds after 2 hours of dialysis). In patients using UFH, the mean value of APTT was 33.7±3.2 seconds before dialysis and 46.3±12.8 seconds (37% increase) after 2 hours of dialysis. The mean value of ACT increased from 177±24 seconds before dialysis to 189±17 seconds after 2 hours of dialysis (6.7% increase, P<0.01). The difference in ACT before and after UFH administration may be too small for effective monitoring of UFH dosage. Conclusions: We conclude that ACT is not good enough for monitoring the optimal dosage of UFH or LMWH during hemodialysis. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。