Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Citrate anticoagulation for continuous venovenous hemofiltration*

Oudemans-van Straaten, Heleen M., Bosman, Rob J., Koopmans, Matty, van der Voort, Peter H. J., Wester, Jos P. J., van der Spoel, Johan I., Dijksman, Lea M., Zandstra, Durk F.·2009·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) is applied in critically ill patients with acute renal failure for renal replacement. Heparins used to prevent circuit clotting may cause bleeding. Regional anticoagulation with citrate reduces bleeding, but has metabolic risks. The aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of the two. DESIGN: Randomized, nonblinded, controlled single-center trial. SETTING: General intensive care unit of a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill patients needing CVVH for acute renal failure and without an increased bleeding risk. INTERVENTIONS: Regional anticoagulation with citrate or systemic anticoagulation with the low-molecular weight heparin nadroparin. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: End points were adverse events necessitating discontinuation of study anticoagulant, transfusion, metabolic and clinical outcomes, and circuit survival. Of the 215 randomized patients, 200 received CVVH per protocol (97 citrate and 103 nadroparin). Adverse events required discontinuation of citrate in two patients (accumulation and clotting) of nadroparin in 20 (bleeding and thrombocytopenia) (p < 0.001). Bleeding occurred in 6 vs. 16 patients (p = 0.08). The median number of red blood cell units transfused per CVVH day was 0.27 (interquartile range, 0.0-0.63) for citrate, 0.36 (interquartile range, 0-0.83) for nadroparin (p = 0.31). Citrate conferred less metabolic alkalosis (p = 0.001) and lower plasma calcium (p < 0.001). Circuit survival was similar. Three-month mortality on intention-to-treat was 48% (citrate) and 63% (nadroparin) (p = 0.03), per protocol 45% and 62% (p = 0.02). Citrate reduced mortality in surgical patients (p = 0.007), sepsis (p = 0.01), higher Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment score (p = 0.006), and lower age (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of citrate and nadroparin anticoagulation for CVVH was similar, however, citrate was safer. Unexpectedly, citrate reduced mortality. Less bleeding could only partly explain this benefit, less clotting could not. Post hoc citrate appeared particularly beneficial after surgery, in sepsis and severe multiple organ failure, suggesting interference with inflammation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181953c5e

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
Oudemans-van Straaten, H. M., Bosman, R. J., Koopmans, M., van der Voort, P. H. J., Wester, J. P. J., van der Spoel, J. I., Dijksman, L. M., & Zandstra, D. F.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2009-02
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
545-552
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989567087
Cited by
332
References
33
FWCI
17.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Citrate anticoagulation for continuous venovenous hemofiltration*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181953c5e
The paper
Oudemans-van Straaten, H. M., Bosman, R. J., Koopmans, M., van der Voort, P. H. J., Wester, J. P. J., van der Spoel, J. I., Dijksman, L. M., & Zandstra, D. F. (2009). Citrate anticoagulation for continuous venovenous hemofiltration*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181953c5e

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.