Loading…
Bleeding outcomes in critically ill patients on heparin with discordant aPTT and anti-Xa activity
Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) level via the anti-factor Xa activity assay (anti-Xa) are commonly used assays for UFH monitoring. While discordance between the two assays is common, its impact on critically ill patient outcomes is unclear. This study ai...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis 2024-10 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) level via the anti-factor Xa activity assay (anti-Xa) are commonly used assays for UFH monitoring. While discordance between the two assays is common, its impact on critically ill patient outcomes is unclear. This study aimed to compare the incidence of major bleeding events among critically ill patients with discordant aPTT and anti-Xa activity while on UFH, to patients with no discordance. This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of critically ill adult patients who had simultaneous anti-Xa and aPTT levels while receiving continuous UFH infusion. The primary outcome was the incidence of a major bleeding event up to 24 h after UFH discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included incidence of 30-day thrombosis and hospital length of stay (LOS). Among 264 included patients, 156 patients (59%) had at least one discordant paired level. Patients with discordance had an increased risk of major bleeding events (14% versus 5%; unadjusted risk ratio, 3.0; 95% CI 1.2-7.8; p = 0.01), and increased risk of thrombotic events (4% versus 0%; p = 0.04). Hospital LOS was similar between the two groups (13.8 days versus 11.4 days; p = 0.08). In this cohort of critically ill patients receiving continuous UFH, discordance in aPTT and anti-Xa activity was frequently observed and was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events. While both assays remain viable monitoring options, evaluating simultaneous levels may aid in the management of critically ill patients. In patients with discordance, an individualized approach balancing bleeding and thrombotic risks should be considered. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1573-742X 1573-742X |
DOI: | 10.1007/s11239-024-03048-0 |