Nafamostat mesylate versus regional citrate anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy in patients at high risk of bleeding: a retrospective single-center study

Table 4 No significant difference in the safety of anticoagulation between two groups

Variables	Regional citrate group (N_visit1 = 75)	Nafamostat mesylate group (N_visit2 = 97)	p value
△Hb (g/L)	2.0 (− 3.0, 4.0)	2.0 (− 2.0, 6.0)	0.113
△HCT (%)	0.4 (− 0.8, 1.5)	0.6 (− 0.6, 2.1)	0.171
△PLT(10^9/L)	8.0 (− 2.0, 19.0)	7.0 (− 2.0, 31.5)	0.680
△PT (S)	− 0.2 (− 0.7, 0.8)	0.0 (− 1.3, 0.8)	0.589
△INR	− 0.02 (− 0.05, 0.07)	− 0.01 (− 0.10, 0.10)	0.766
△APTT (S)	− 0.7 (− 5.2, 1.3)	− 1.0 (− 4.7, 2.0)	0.896
△TT(S)	0.1 (− 1.2, 0.9)	0.0 (− 1.0, 1.0)	0.598
△DD(ng/mL)	0.01 (− 0.2, 1.2)	0.03 (− 0.4, 1.3)	0.922

The data presented in this table was derived from baseline measurements obtained before each RRT session for 46 patients distributed across two groups (Ntotal visit = 172). “Δ value” means the change before and after treatment. Continuous variables were described by median and interquartile range. Categorical variables were described by percentages, representing the count within each subgroup divided by the total number of observations (Nvisit) in that respective subgroup
Statistics analysis was conducted using the Mann–Whitney U test. The p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Calculations were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 28.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp)
Hb Hemoglobin, HCT Hematocrit, PLT Platelet Count, PT Prothrombin Time, INR International Normalized Ratio, APTT Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time, TT Thrombin Time, DD D-dimer

ISSN: 2047-783X