Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 3;2018(4):CD010597. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010597.pub2

Weijmer 2005.

Methods

  • Study design: parallel RCT

  • Study duration: April 2001 to September 2002

  • Duration of follow‐up: not reported
Participants

  • Setting: multicentre (9)

  • Country: Netherlands and Belgium

  • Participants > 18 years, not admitted to the ICU, and experienced CKD or AKI that required HD treatment by means of a HD catheter. Only participants with a newly inserted, well‐positioned HD catheter that was expected to be needed for 1 week

  • Number (participants/catheters): treatment group (148/148); control group (143/143)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (61.6 ± 14.8); control group (61.3 ± 16.0)

  • Sex (M/F): treatment group (61/87); control group (56/87)

  • Exclusion criteria: suspected heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia or heparin‐induced thrombosis; systemic bacterial infection; localised infection requiring systemic antibiotics; proven or suspected allergy to heparin or trisodium citrate; pregnancy
Interventions Treatment group

  • Trisodium citrate: 30%


Control group

  • Heparin: 5000 U/mL
Outcomes

  • CRI

  • Exit‐side infection

  • Thrombosis

  • Adverse effects (bleeding episodes)
Notes

  • Funding source: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk "...computer‐generated list of random numbers in blocks of six and stratified according to the dialysis centre and to the type of catheter inserted (tunneled cuffed or untunneled)."
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk "The randomization codes were kept by the central department of pharmacy"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk "Patients and investigators were unaware of the treatment assignments"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All analyses were performed on an intention‐to‐treat basis
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Describes the outcome according to objective
Other bias Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement