SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2026
Anticoagulation approaches in hemodialysis: a systematic review of efficacy, safety, and literature gap.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAnticoagulation is essential in hemodialysis (HD) to maintain circuit patency and reduce thromboembolic risk. Common options include unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA), and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). This review synthesizes current evidence on these agents in HD, emphasizing efficacy, safety, cost, administration, and remaining knowledge gaps.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidance and predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Interventions included DOACs, LMWH, UFH, RCA, nafamostat, and heparin-free strategies. Typical comparators were VKAs, saline flush protocols, or other anticoagulant classes. Eligible studies reported at least one outcome of interest: circuit patency, bleeding events, cost effectiveness, or identified gaps in the literature.
resultsDOACs particularly apixaban and rivaroxaban demonstrated efficacy comparable to VKAs for thromboembolic prevention. UFH and LMWH showed similar effectiveness in maintaining circuit patency, and RCA and nafamostat provided alternatives for patients at high bleeding risk. Safety profiles generally favored DOACs and RCA, with lower rates of major bleeding than warfarin and UFH/LMWH. Practical considerations indicated that UFH was often the most cost-effective option, whereas DOACs offered the convenience of oral administration at higher drug costs. Important evidence gaps persist, including limited long term comparative studies and few placebo-controlled trials.
conclusionAnticoagulant selection in HD should balance efficacy, safety, cost, administration, and monitoring, tailored to patient risk profiles and institutional resources. Future research should prioritize head-to-head comparisons, long term outcomes, cost effectiveness, and the effects of anticoagulation strategies on dialysis adequacy to support more precise clinical decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41621041What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.