Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Regional Citrate Anticoagulation Versus Heparin in CRRT

Heparin continues to be the most common modality of anticoagulation in CRRT. The increased risk of hemorrhagic complications associated with its use led to the emergence of regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) as an alternative. However, the perceived complexities associated with its use and the risk of metabolic derangements have prevented it from being adopted on a larger scale. Thus, we conducted a prospective study to compare the efficacy and safety of RCA versus heparin.

Adult patients admitted to our ICU (November 2018-November 2019) with renal insufficiency and requiring CRRT were included in the study. It was an open-label study with 25 patients each being allotted to the heparin and citrate groups. Our primary outcome was the filter life span. Secondary outcomes included metabolic derangements, bleeding episodes, and patient survival. The starting dose of citrate was 2.0 mmol/L.

The mean filter life span was 32.84 h in the citrate group and 30.40 h in the heparin group (p-value = 0.47). In a significant proportion of the cases, CRRT was terminated for non-filter clotting-related reasons (64% in citrate vs. 32% in heparin). Kaplan-Meir analysis was done to overcome this confounder; the filter lifespan was estimated to be 46.94 h in citrate and 40.05 h for the heparin group (p-value = 0.29). No significant metabolic derangements or bleeding episodes were noted in either group. Overall patient survival was higher in the citrate group at 52% versus 32% (p-value = 0.15) in the heparin group.

No significant difference in filter lifespan or risk of metabolic derangements was noted. A trend toward higher patient survival rates in the citrate group was noted, which warrants further evaluation in future trials.