Anticoagulant failure in coagulopathic patients: PTT confounding and other pitfalls

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Thrombocytopenia and heparin exposure are common in critically ill patients, yet immune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), a prothrombotic adverse effect of heparin, rarely accounts for thrombocytopenia in this patient population. The review discusses the clinical and laboratory features that distinguish HIT from non-HIT thrombocytopenia.

RECENT FINDINGS

The frequency of HIT in heparin-exposed critically ill patients is approximately 0.3-0.5% versus at least a 30-50% background frequency of non-HIT thrombocytopenia. Most patients who form anti-PF4/heparin antibodies do not develop HIT, contributing to HIT overdiagnosis. Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), particularly in the setting of cardiogenic or septic shock associated with 'shock liver', can cause ischemic limb gangrene with pulses, mimicking a clinical picture of HIT. However, whereas non-HIT-related DIC with microthrombosis can be treated with heparin, HIT usually requires nonheparin anticoagulation. HIT-associated DIC can result in an elevated INR, which could reflect factor VII depletion because of extrinsic (tissue factor) pathway-mediated activation of coagulation.

SUMMARY

Greater understanding of the various clinical and laboratory features that distinguish HIT from non-HIT thrombocytopenia could help improve outcomes in patients who develop thrombocytopenia and coagulopathies in the ICU.

Safety and efficacy of starting warfarin after two consecutive platelet count rises in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines on the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) recommend warfarin initiation when platelet levels recover to 150×10(9)/L or more. However, many patients may not achieve this platelet level or may have slow platelet recovery. The aim of this study is to determine if initiating warfarin when platelets start trending upward instead of at a specific level is safe and effective in patients diagnosed with HIT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two groups of patients diagnosed and treated for HIT in a tertiary care hospital were assessed for HIT-related outcomes: 28 patients had warfarin initiated after platelets recovered to 150×10(9)/L or more and 30 patients had warfarin initiated prior to platelet recovery.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the rate of thrombosis, venous limb gangrene, or limb amputation. Three patients died during the data collection period, all deemed to be unrelated to HIT by independent investigators. The average hospital length of stay was 22.2±12.7days and 38.8±19.1days for patients who started warfarin at platelets less than 150×10(9)/L and platelets greater than or equal to 150×10(9)/L respectively (P=0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggests that the absolute platelet level at which warfarin is initiated does not affect the rate of thrombosis or mortality but may shorten overall hospital length of stay and associated costs. Therefore, it may be more important to observe an upward trend in platelets rather than striving to achieve an absolute platelet level before starting warfarin in patients with HIT.

Management of the multiple phases of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

The clinical course of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) may be separated into five sequential phases: 1. suspected HIT, 2. acute HIT, 3. subacute HIT A, 4. subacute HIT B, and 5. remote HIT. Each phase confronts the clinician with a unique set of management questions. In this review, the phases of HIT are defined and key management questions associated with each phase are discussed. Among patients with Suspected HIT, I use the 4Ts score to determine which patients have a sufficiently high probability of HIT to justify discontinuation of heparin and initiation of a non-heparin parenteral anticoagulant. An algorithm for selecting an appropriate non-heparin anticoagulant based on the patient's clinical stability, renal and hepatic function, drug availability, and physician comfort is provided. In patients with Acute HIT, I generally avoid prophylactic platelet transfusion and inferior vena cava filter insertion because of a potential increased risk of thrombosis. I perform 4-limb screening compression ultrasonography. In patients with symptomatic thromboembolism or asymptomatic proximal deep-vein thrombosis, I treat with anticoagulation for three months. In patients without thrombosis, I discontinue anticoagulation upon platelet count recovery. I do not transition patients to an oral anticoagulant until platelet count recovery (i. e. Subacute HIT A). I increasingly choose direct oral anticoagulants over vitamin K antagonists in this setting because of their greater convenience and safety. In Subacute HIT B and Remote HIT, I use heparin for cardiovascular surgery, whereas I use bivalirudin in patients with Acute HIT and Subacute HIT A in whom surgery cannot be delayed.

Shock, acute disseminated intravascular coagulation, and microvascular thrombosis: is 'shock liver' the unrecognized provocateur of ischemic limb necrosis?

For unknown reasons, a small minority of critically ill patients with septic or cardiogenic shock, multiorgan failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulation develop symmetrical acral (distal extremity) limb loss due to microvascular thrombosis ('limb gangrene with pulses'). Case reports have described preceding 'shock liver' in some critically ill patients who developed such a picture of ischemic limb necrosis. This suggests that profoundly disturbed procoagulant-anticoagulant balance featuring uncontrolled generation of thrombin-resulting from failure of the protein C and antithrombin natural anticoagulant systems due to insufficient hepatic synthesis of these crucial proteins-could explain the microvascular thrombosis and associated limb loss. We hypothesize that shock liver is the key predisposing risk factor underlying ischemic limb necrosis in the majority of patients who develop this complication in the setting of acute disseminated intravascular coagulation complicating septic or cardiogenic shock. As shock liver precedes onset of limb ischemia by several days, therapeutic intervention may be possible.

Guidance for the practical management of the heparin anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious and often fatal medical condition with an increasing incidence. Despite the changing landscape of VTE treatment with the introduction of the new direct oral anticoagulants many uncertainties remain regarding the optimal use of traditional parenteral agents. This manuscript, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance based on existing guidelines and consensus expert opinion where guidelines are lacking. This specific chapter addresses the practical management of heparins including low molecular weight heparins and fondaparinux. For each anticoagulant a list of the most common practice related questions were created. Each question was addressed using a brief focused literature review followed by a multidisciplinary consensus guidance recommendation. Issues addressed included initial anticoagulant dosing recommendations, recommended baseline laboratory monitoring, managing dose adjustments, evidence to support a relationship between laboratory tests and meaningful clinical outcomes, special patient populations including extremes of weight and renal impairment, duration of necessary parenteral therapy during the transition to oral therapy, candidates for outpatient treatment where appropriate and management of over-anticoagulation and adverse effects including bleeding and heparin induced thrombocytopenia. This article concludes with a concise table of clinical management questions and guidance recommendations to provide a quick reference for the practical management of heparin, low molecular weight heparin and fondaparinux.

Argatroban in the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a multicenter clinical trial

Introduction

The aim of this study was to collect data in France in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia who required parenteral anticoagulation and for whom other non-heparin anticoagulant therapies were contraindicated including patients with renal failure, cross-reactivity to danaparoid or at high hemorrhagic risk.

Methods

A total of 20 patients, of mean age 72 ± 10 years, were enrolled in this open-label, multicenter clinical study. Exploratory statistical data analysis was performed with descriptive interpretation of intra-individual comparisons using simple univariate statistics.

Results

The diagnosis of HIT was confirmed in 16 subjects by an independent scientific committee. Fourteen patients (70 %) were in an intensive care unit during the course of the study. Patients were treated with argatroban for a mean duration of 8.5 ± 6.1 days. The mean starting dose of argatroban was 0.77 ± 0.45 μg/kg/min. Platelet recovery was rapid.

aPTT and anti-IIa activity assays were used to monitor the dose of argatroban. The mean baseline aPTT value was 45.0 ± 9.8 sec and increased to 78.2 ± 35.8 sec two hours after initiating argatroban. At this time mean argatroban concentration was 0.34 ± 0.16 and 0.61 ± 0.28 μg/ml using ECT and TT measurements, respectively. New and/or extended thromboses were reported in 25 % of patients and major bleedings were documented in 15 %. Six patients died due to their underlying medical condition.

Conclusion

Considering its hepatic elimination and its short half-life, argatroban can be considered as a safe therapeutic option in HIT patients at high hemorrhagic risk and with renal failure, particularly in an ICU setting.

Frequent off-label use of fondaparinux in patients with suspected acute heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT)--findings from the GerHIT multi-centre registry study

INTRODUCTION

In life-threatening immune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), treatment with an approved non-heparin anticoagulant is essential. However, off-label use with fondaparinux has been reported in the literature. The study aim was to collect data on "real-life" management of patients with suspected acute HIT regarding diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a national multi-centre registry study, patients with a 4T's HIT-probability score of ≥ 4 points and treatment with at least one dose of (A)rgatroban, (L)epirudin, (D)anaparoid, or (F)ondaparinux were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 195 patients, the 4T's scores were 4/5/6/7/8 points in 46 (23.6%)/50 (25.6%)/74 (38.0%)/13 (6.7%)/7 (3.6%) patients, respectively. During heparin therapy, 47 (24.1%) thromboembolic events, 5 (2.6%) skin lesions, 1 (0.5%) amputation, 24 (12.3%) Hb-relevant bleedings, and 2 (1.0%) fatalities occurred. A functional heparin-induced platelet activation assay was performed in 96.9%, a platelet factor 4/heparin-dependent enzyme immunoassay in 89.2%, a particle gel immunoassay in 12.3%, and a serotonin-release assay in none of the patients. Argatroban was used in 16.4%, lepirudin in 2.1%, danaparoid in 23.6%, fondaparinux in 40.0% of the patients; the sequential therapy strata were: AF (5.6%), DA (5.6%), DF (2.6%), DL (2.1%), ADF (1.5%), and DFL (0.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The current diagnostic laboratory strategy for suspected HIT is mostly (>96%) based on the recommended 2-step strategy (immunoassay plus functional assay). However, there is a wide fondaparinux off-label use (up to 50.3%) for suspected HIT, even in those patients with a high clinical pretest probability. Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux for HIT-treatment require further evaluation.