Association Between Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Risk of Bleeding Among Hemodialysis Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) replaced unfractionated heparin (UFH) in multiple indications. Although LMWH efficacy in hemodialysis was demonstrated through multiple studies, their safety remains controversial. The potential bioaccumulation in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis raised the question of bleeding risk among this population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate bleeding risk among patients with chronic hemodialysis receiving LMWH or UFH for the extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on data extracted from the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) and Med-Echo databases from January 2007 to March 2013. SETTING: Twenty-one hemodialysis centers in the province of Québec, Canada. PATIENTS: Chronic hemodialysis patients. MEASUREMENTS: Bleeding risk evaluated by proportional Cox model for time-dependent exposure using demographics, comorbidities, and drug use as covariates. METHODS: Minor, major, and total bleeding events identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes in the RAMQ and Med-Echo databases. Exposure status to LMWH or UFH was collected through surveys at the facility level. RESULTS: We identified 5322 prevalent and incident patients with chronic hemodialysis. The incidence rate for minor, major, and total bleeding was 9.45 events/1000 patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.61-11.03), 24.18 events/1000 patient-year (95% CI: 21.52-27.08), and 32.88 events/1000 patient-year (95% CI: 29.75-36.26), respectively. We found similar risks of minor adjusted hazard ratio (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.68-1.61), major (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63-1.10), and total bleeding (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.72-1.14) when comparing LMWH with UFH. LIMITATIONS: Potential misclassification of patients’ exposure status and possible underestimation of minor bleeding risk. CONCLUSION: LMWH was not associated with a higher minor, major, or total bleeding risk. LMWH did not increase the risk of bleeding compared with UFH for the extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation in hemodialysis. The convenience of use and predictable effect made LMWH a suitable alternative to UFH in hemodialysis.