Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 22, No. 1, 2002
Issue release date: January–February 2002
Am J Nephrol 2002;22:58–66

Comparison between Tinzaparin and Standard Heparin for Chronic Hemodialysis in a Canadian Center

Lord H. · Jean N. · Dumont M. · Kassis J. · Leblanc M.
Hemodialysis Unit,aNephrology Division, and bHematology Division, Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, and cBiostatistics Department, University of Montreal, Canada

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Background: Low-molecular-weight heparins offer several advantages over standard heparins, but their use for maintenance hemodialysis has been limited in North America because of their higher cost. Our objective was to compare tinzaparin to standard heparin during maintenance hemodialysis over an 8-week period, in regard to the visual aspect of the extracorporeal circuit, filter reuse, bleeding and time for compression of vascular access at the end of hemodialysis session, nursing time devoted to anticoagulation administration, level of satisfaction of patients and nurses, and relative cost. Methods: Thirty-two chronic hemodialysis adult patients with peripheral accesses were randomly divided into two groups in a cross-over design: tinzaparin for 4 weeks followed by standard heparin for 4 weeks, or vice versa. Hemodialysis was performed thrice weekly over 3.5–4 h using large surface reused filters. Standard heparin was administered as an initial bolus of 50–75 units per kilogram followed by an infusion to maintain an activated clotting time (ACTESTER) between 150 and 200 s and discontinued 30–45 min before the end of the session. The initial dose of tinzaparin was 3,500 IU anti-Xa for patients usually receiving 7,500 units or less of standard heparin, or 4,500 IU anti-Xa for patients receiving more than 7,500 units of standard heparin, and it was injected as a bolus in the arterial line at the beginning of hemodialysis. Dosage adjustments were made by increments or decrements of 500 IU. Results: A total of 6 patients did not require any adjustment in their dose of tinzaparin and remained at the initial dose, while the remaining 26 necessitated adjustments of the initial dose of tinzaparin: 20 patients required increments from the initial dose whereas 6 required reductions. For most patients, 27 of them, the standard heparin dose was kept at the same level throughout the study period (since it was their usual regimen and they were in stable medical conditions). According to the monitoring scale, the visual aspects of the tubing of the extracorporeal circuit and of the dialyzers at the end of the session were similar for both tinzaparin and standard heparin. The time of compression of the vascular access at the end of the hemodialysis sessions was not significantly different with tinzaparin than with standard heparin. However, as indicated below, most patients noted less bleeding (or oozing) from their access (during compression and thereafter, in the few hours after hemodialysis) with tinzaparin than with standard heparin. Clotting was observed more frequently in the arterial and venous bubble traps with tinzaparin than with standard heparin. The presence of clot(s) was observed in the arterial and venous bubble traps in, respectively, 18 ± 12 and 10 ± 6% of the sessions with tinzaparin, while in, respectively, 3 ± 4 and 2 ± 4% of the sessions with standard heparin (p < 0.005). Despite a tendency for a reduced reuse number of the dialyzers, the difference did not reach statistical significance. Among the 30 patients who completed the study, 2 reported excessive bleeding from their vascular access with tinzaparin whereas 8 reported such an excessive bleeding with standard heparin. The level of satisfaction of patients and nurses for tinzaparin was extremely good. The main reasons stated by the patients was reduced bleeding from their access after dialysis. The nurses preferred tinzaparin because of the simplicity and the rapidity of its administration, the lack of monitoring required, and the decreased bleeding/oozing tendency from the vascular access sites. The time spent for anticoagulation during a hemodialysis session was reported as 5 min with standard heparin (if no ACTESTER monitoring), 25–30 min with standard heparin (if ACTESTER monitoring required), and 1 min with tinzaparin. The cost analysis revealed that although tinzaparin is more than six times more expensive than standard heparin, the use of tinzaparin becomes similar to the use of standard heparin (USD 7.33 vs. USD 7.62 Canadian dollars for one hemodialysis session) if ACTESTER monitoring is performed (assuming that 22% of the sessions are routinely monitored and that one ACTESTER device is necessary for 8–10 dialysis stations, as applied in our unit). Conclusion: Our experience with tinzaparin was positive: it represents a simple and easy way to offer anticoagulation during maintenance hemodialysis, it seems associated with less postdialysis bleeding, it saves precious nursing time and is widely appreciated by patients and staff.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Robinet SF: Uremic bleeding. Prog Hemost Thromb 1972;1:233–250.

    External Resources

  2. Watson AJ, Gimenez LF: The bleeding diathesis of uremia. Semin Dial 1991;4:86–93.
  3. Sanders PW, Taylor H, Curtis JJ: Hemodialysis without anticoagulation. Am J Kidney Dis 1985;5:32–35.
  4. Schwab SJ, Onorato JJ, Sharar LR, Dennis PA: Hemodialysis without anticoagulation: One year prospective trial in hospitalized patients at risk for bleeding. Am J Med 1987;83:405–410.
  5. Rinnick RV, Wiegmann TB, Diederich DA: Regional citrate anticoagulation for hemodialysis in the patient at high risk for bleeding. N Engl J Med 1983;308:258–261.
  6. Flanigan MJ, Pillsbury L, Sadewasser G, Lim VS: Regional hemodialysis anticoagulation: Hypertonic tri-sodium citrate or anticoagulant citrate dextrose A. Am J Kidney Dis 1996;27:519–524.
  7. Hirsh J, Levine MN: Low molecular weight heparin. Blood 1992;79:1–17.
  8. Hyers TM, Agnelli G, Hull RD, Weg JG, Marris AT, Samama M, Tapson V: Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease. Chest 1998;114:561S–578S.
  9. Hull RD, Raskob GE, Pineo GF, Green D, Trowbridge AA, Elliott CG, Lerner RC, Hall J, Sparling T, Brettell HR, et al: Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin compared with continuous intravenous heparin in the treatment of proximal-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1992;326:975–982.
  10. Hull R, Raskob G, Pineo G, Rosenbloom D, Evans W, Mallory T, Anquist K, Smith F, Hughes G, Green D, et al: A comparison of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin with warfarin sodium for prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after hip or knee implantation. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1370–1376.
  11. Planes A, Vochelle N, Mazas F, Mansat C, Zucman J, Landais A, Pascariello JC, Weill D, Butel J: Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after hip replacement: Comparison between two low-molecular-weight heparins, tinzaparin and enoxaparin. Thromb Haemost 1988;60:407–410.
  12. Beijering RJR: ISBN 90–9011750–4.
  13. Ryckelynck JP, Chouraqui D, Lobbedez T: Anticoagulation of the extracorporeal circuit in chronic hemodialysis. Nephrologie 1998;19:223–225.

    External Resources

  14. Saltissi D, Morgan C, Westhuyzen J, Healy Hl: Comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin sodium) and standard unfractionated heparin for haemodialysis anticoagulation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999;14:2698–2703.

    External Resources

  15. Simpson HKL, Baird J, Allison M, Briggs JD, Rowe PA, Welsh M, Macdougall AI, Grant AC, Lowe GDO, Rumley A, Wallace M, Menday AP: Long-term use of the low-molecular-weight heparin tinzaparin in haemodialysis. Haemostasis 1996;26:90–97.

    External Resources

  16. Egfjord M, Rosenlund L, Hedegaard B, Buchardt L, Stengel C, Gardar P, Andersen L, Andersen L: Dose titration study of tinzaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, in patients on chronic hemodialysis. Artif Organs 1998;22:633–637.
  17. Akiba T, Tachibana K, Ozawa K, Chida Y, Ogasawara H, Yoshiyama N, Hoshino M, Inada T, Marumo F: Long-term use of low-molecular-weight heparin ameliorates hyperlipidemia in patients on hemodialysis. ASAIO J 1992;38:M326–330.

    External Resources

  18. Elisaf MS, Germanos NP, Bairaktari HT, Pappas MB, Koulouridis EI, Siamopoulos KC: Effects of conventional vs. low-molecular-weight heparin on lipid profile in hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 1997;17:153–157.

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50