Skip to main content

Table 5 GEE analysis of the impact of different anticoagulants on the success rate of CRRT

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

 

Unadjusted model

Adjusted model 1

Adjusted model 2

Factor

B (SE)

95% wald confidence interval

p-value

B (SE)

95% wald confidence interval

p-value

B (SE)

95% wald confidence interval

p-value

Group (citric)

0.49

0.17–1.42

0.189

0.76

0.25–2.27

0.620

1.10

0.33–3.71

0.88

PT(S)

   

1.51

0.90–2.53

0.117

0.59

0.35–0.99

0.05

INR

   

0.02

0.00–3.43

0.130

191.67

0.86–42892.26

0.06

APTT(S)

   

1.03

1.01–1.06

0.007

0.97

0.94–1.00

0.36

SOFA

      

0.89

0.79–1.01

0.06

WBC (10^9/L)

      

1.06

1.00–1.13

0.04

BUN (mmol/L)

      

0.99

0.96–1.03

0.76

  1. 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). Different models involved different groups of factors. The Nafamostat mesylate Group was analyzed as the reference group
  2. Statistics analysis was conducted using Generalized estimating equations (GEE) repeated measure 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)
  3. PT Prothrombin Time, INR International Normalized Ratio, APTT Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, WBC White Blood Cell Count, BUN Blood Urea Nitrogen
Back to article page

European Journal of Medical Research

ISSN: 2047-783X

Contact us