Logo-jnp
J Nephropathol. 2025;14(3): e27589.
doi: 10.34172/jnp.2025.27589
  Abstract View: 6
  PDF Download: 2

Original Article

Citrate versus heparin lock in hemodialysis catheter’s complications; a randomized clinical trial

Mahsa Kohansal Vajargah 1 ORCID logo, Fereshteh Saddadi 1* ORCID logo, Mohammad Hassan Fallahkohan 2 ORCID logo, Shahrzad Ossareh 1 ORCID logo

1 Department of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine, Hasheminejad Kidney Center (HKC), Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Faculty of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Fereshteh Saddadi, Email: iumssaddadi@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Permanent central venous catheters (CVCs) are utilized in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis who lack alternative vascular access or are awaiting kidney transplantation or the development of a long-term vascular access. The primary complications associated with CVCs include catheter-related infections (CRIs) and catheter lumen thrombosis, collectively contributing to catheter dysfunction.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 4% sodium citrate and heparin lock solutions in maintaining hemodialysis catheters, focusing on catheter dysfunction and infection, coagulation parameters, and serum calcium levels.

Patients and Methods: This randomized clinical trial included 58 patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis, who were randomly assigned into two parallel groups. The intervention group (Citra-Lock; n = 29) received a lock solution containing 4% sodium citrate, while the control group (Heparin-Lock; n = 29) was administered a heparin 5000 IU lock. Data regarding hemorrhagic or coagulation events (e.g., prolonged partial thromboplastin time [PTT]), infections, catheter-related obstructions, and bleeding at the catheter site were prospectively collected and analyzed in both groups. Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 27, with a P value < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results: The male-to-female ratio in the study population was 1.52. A significant difference was observed in PTT changes between Citra-Lock and heparin-lock groups (P<0.001). However, no significant differences were found in platelet counts or international normalized ratio (INR) levels (186750±9580 versus 175586±10424 and 1.00 versus 1.00; P= 0.247, P=0.326 respectively). Besides, there were no statistically significant differences in catheter related complications (P=0.669).

Conclusion: In patients with durable hemodialysis catheters, the administration of a 4% sodium citrate lock solution was associated with fewer changes in PTT compared to heparin locks, without increasing the risk of infections or other catheter-related complications.

Trial registration: The trial was approved by the Iranian registry of clinical trial (identifier: IRCT20231018059761N1; https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/75555, ethical code; IR.IUMS.FMD. REC.1402.459).



Implication for health policy/practice/research/medical education:

Sophisticated maintenance of central venous catheters (CVCs) is crucial for patients on hemodialysis, which can reduce further serious complications that needs salvage or exchanging catheters. At this condition, anticoagulant lock solutions such as the heparin lock are used widely and have specific considerations. This study was conducted to compare 4% sodium citrate and heparin lock in this population. Our findings suggest that both 4% sodium citrate (Citra-Lock) and heparin are comparable in maintaining catheter patency and preventing complications in hemodialysis patients, with no significant differences observed in catheter-related complications, coagulation parameters except for partial thromboplastin time (PTT) which shows drastic changes in heparin group compared to Citra-Lock.

Please cite this paper as: Kohansal Vajargah M, Saddadi F, Fallahkohan MH, Ossareh Sh. Citrate versus heparin lock in hemodialysis catheter’s complications; a randomized clinical trial. J Nephropathol. 2025;14(3):e27589. DOI: 10.34172/jnp.2025.27589.

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 7

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 2

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 24 Oct 2024
Revision: 31 Dec 2024
Accepted: 12 Mar 2025
ePublished: 15 Apr 2025
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)