Pre-operative heparin reduces pulmonary microvascular fibrin deposition following cardiac surgery

Pharmacology of Heparin and Related Drugs: An Update

Heparin has been used extensively as an antithrombotic and anticoagulant for close to 100 years. This anticoagulant activity is attributed mainly to the pentasaccharide sequence, which potentiates the inhibitory action of antithrombin, a major inhibitor of the coagulation cascade. More recently it has been elucidated that heparin exhibits anti-inflammatory effect via interference of the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps and this may also contribute to heparin's antithrombotic activity. This illustrates that heparin interacts with a broad range of biomolecules, exerting both anticoagulant and nonanticoagulant actions. Since our previous review, there has been an increased interest in these nonanticoagulant effects of heparin, with the beneficial role in patients infected with SARS2-coronavirus a highly topical example. This article provides an update on our previous review with more recent developments and observations made for these novel uses of heparin and an overview of the development status of heparin-based drugs. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This state-of-the-art review covers recent developments in the use of heparin and heparin-like materials as anticoagulant, now including immunothrombosis observations, and as nonanticoagulant including a role in the treatment of SARS-coronavirus and inflammatory conditions.

Effect of Nebulized Heparin on Weaning off Intubated Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU): A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treatment is based on supportive care such as mechanical ventilation, prophylaxis of stress ulcer, prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), nutritional support, and treatment of underlying disease. Objectives: We aimed to investigate the effects of nebulized heparin on weaning off intubated ARDS patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: In this double-blind clinical trial study, 60 patients with ARDS receiving routine care according to the ARDS protocol were randomly assigned into two groups: intervention group (receiving nebulized heparin 5000 u/BD for one week) and control group (receiving nebulized sterile water 2 cc/BD for one week). The respiratory index (PaO2/FiO2), pulmonary shunt percentage (measured by ABG), tidal volume, minute ventilation, admission duration in the ICU, and days of mechanical ventilation required were recorded for each patient for one week. Results: There was no significant difference in demographic data between the two groups. Inhaled heparin in patients with ARDS could significantly increase the respiratory index (PaO2/FiO2) and decrease pulmonary shunt percentage, minute ventilation, and tidal volume. It also significantly reduced the number of admission days in the ICU and the need for mechanical ventilation. Conclusions: The result of the present study showed that inhaled heparin in intubated ARDS patients admitted to the ICU improved respiratory and pulmonary status and reduced the need for mechanical ventilation and admission days in the ICU. Nebulizing heparin, as an anti-inflammatory and anti-coagulant agent, is an effective and safe medication for ARDS patients on mechanical ventilation.

Nebulised heparin for patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background

Mechanical ventilation in intensive care for 48 h or longer is associated with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which might be present at the time ventilatory support is instituted or develop afterwards, predominantly during the first 5 days. Survivors of prolonged mechanical ventilation and ARDS are at risk of considerably impaired physical function that can persist for years. An early pathogenic mechanism of lung injury in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients is inflammation-induced pulmonary fibrin deposition, leading to thrombosis of the microvasculature and hyaline membrane formation in the air sacs. The main aim of this study was to determine if nebulised heparin, which targets fibrin deposition, would limit lung injury and thereby accelerate recovery of physical function in patients with or at risk of ARDS.

Methods

The Can Heparin Administration Reduce Lung Injury (CHARLI) study was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial across nine hospitals in Australia. Adult intensive care patients on invasive ventilation, with impaired oxygenation defined by a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio of less than 300, and with the expectation of invasive ventilation beyond the next calendar day were recruited. Key exclusion criteria were heparin allergy, pulmonary bleeding, and platelet count less than 50 X 10⁹/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1, with stratification by site and using blocks of variable size and random seed, via a web-based system, to either unfractionated heparin sodium 25 000 IU in 5 mL or identical placebo (sodium chloride 0·9% 5 mL), administered using a vibrating mesh membrane nebuliser every 6 h to day 10 while invasively ventilated. Patients, clinicians, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the Short Form 36 Health Survey Physical Function Score (out of 100) of survivors at day 60. Prespecified secondary outcomes, which are exploratory, included development of ARDS to day 5 among at-risk patients, deterioration of the Murray Lung Injury Score (MLIS) to day 5, mortality at day 60, residence of survivors at day 60, and serious adverse events. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. There was no imputation of missing data. The trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, number ACTRN12612000418875 .

Findings

Between Sept 4, 2012, and Aug 23, 2018, 256 patients were randomised. Final follow-up was on Feb 25, 2019. We excluded three patients who revoked consent and one ineligible participant who received no intervention. Of 252 patients included in data analysis, the mean age was 58 years (SD 15), 157 (62%) were men, and 118 (47%) had ARDS. 128 (51%) patients were assigned to the heparin group and 124 (49%) to the placebo group, all of whom received their assigned intervention. Survivors in the heparin group (n=97) had similar SF-36 Physical Function Scores at day 60 compared to the placebo group (n=94; mean 53·6 [SD 31·6] vs 48·7 [35·7]; difference 4·9 [95% CI −4·8 to 14·5]; p=0·32). Compared with the placebo group, the heparin group had fewer cases of ARDS develop to day 5 among the at-risk patients (nine [15%] of 62 patients vs 21 [30%] of 71 patients; hazard ratio 0·46 [95% CI 0·22 to 0·98]; p=0·0431), less deterioration of the MLIS to day 5 (difference −0·14 [–0·26 to −0·02]; p=0·0215), similar day 60 mortality (23 [18%] of 127 patients vs 18 [15%] of 123 patients; odds ratio [OR] 1·29 [95% CI 0·66 to 2·53]; p=0·46), and more day 60 survivors at home (86 [87%] of 99 patients vs 73 [73%] of 100 patients; OR 2·45 [1·18 to 5·08]; p=0·0165). A similar number of serious adverse events occurred in each group (seven [5%] of 128 patients in the heparin group vs three [2%] of 124 patients in the placebo group; OR 2·33 [0·59 to 9·24]; p=0·23), which were a transient increase in airway pressure during nebulisation (n=3 in the heparin group), major non-pulmonary bleeding (n=2 in each group), haemoptysis (n=1 in the heparin group), tracheotomy site bleeding (n=1 in the heparin group), and hypoxaemia during nebulisation (n=1 in the placebo group).

Interpretation

In patients with or at risk of ARDS, nebulised heparin did not improve self-reported performance of daily physical activities, but was well tolerated and exploratory outcomes suggest less progression of lung injury and earlier return home. Further research is justified to establish if nebulised heparin accelerates recovery in those who have or are at risk of ARDS.

Funding

Rowe Family Foundation, TR and RB Ditchfield Medical Research Endowment Fund, Patricia Madigan Charitable Trust, and The J and R McGauran Trust Fund.

Nebulized heparin and salbutamol versus salbutamol alone in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring mechanical ventilation: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Background

Nebulized heparin has been effectively used in the management of many pulmonary diseases. However, its effect on mechanically ventilated patients with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) has never been studied. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of nebulized heparin and salbutamol to increase ventilator-free days (VFD) in mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients and the effect of nebulized heparin on respiratory and coagulation functions.

Methods

In this double-blind controlled study, 60 mechanically ventilated adult patients with AECOPD were randomly allocated into two groups; heparin and salbutamol (HS) group and salbutamol only (S) group. In the HS group, patients received nebulized heparin (25,000 IU) and salbutamol (5 mg) every 6 hours. Patients in the S group received nebulized salbutamol only (5 mg). The treatment was continued while patients remained ventilated for a maximum of 14 days. The primary outcome was VFDs at day 14. PaCO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, number of nebulizations withheld, C-reactive protein (CRP) titer and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were secondary outcomes.

Results

Patients in the Group HS had significantly more VFDs 4.7 ± 3.3 compared with those in the Group S 2.4 ± 2.6, P = 0.007. PaCO2 levels, PaO2/FiO2, the decrease in the CRP level and the increase in the APTT from the baseline showed no evidence of difference in both groups.

Conclusions

The co-administration of nebulized heparin and salbutamol, compared with salbutamol alone, significantly increased (VFDs) among mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients without increasing bleeding risks.

A trial of nebulised heparin to limit lung injury following cardiac surgery

Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass triggers an acute inflammatory response in the lungs. This response gives rise to fibrin deposition in the microvasculature and alveoli of the lungs. Fibrin deposition in the microvasculature increases alveolar dead space, while fibrin deposition in alveoli causes shunting. We investigated whether prophylactic nebulised heparin could limit this form of lung injury. We undertook a single-centre double-blind randomised trial. Forty patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were randomised to prophylactic nebulised heparin (50,000 U) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in arterial oxygen levels over the operative period. Secondary endpoints included end-tidal CO₂, the alveolar dead space fraction and bleeding complications. We found nebulised heparin did not improve arterial oxygen levels. Nebulised heparin was, however, associated with a lower alveolar dead space fraction (P <0.05) and lower tidal volumes at the end of surgery (P <0.01). Nebulised heparin was not associated with bleeding complications. In conclusion, prophylactic nebulised heparin did not improve oxygenation, but was associated with evidence of better alveolar perfusion and CO₂elimination at the end of surgery.

Heparin/N-acetylcysteine: an adjuvant in the management of burn inhalation injury: a study of different doses

PURPOSE

Nebulized heparin may reduce fibrin cast formation and reduce the degree of airway obstruction in burn inhalation injury.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients admitted to burn intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 hours of burn inhalation injury were included in this prospective double-blinded randomized study. Group H5 received nebulized heparin sulfate 5,000 IU, and group H10 received nebulized heparin sulfate 10,000 IU. Heparin was given in alternation with N-acetylcysteine every 2 hours. Lung injury score assessed daily for 7 days was the primary outcome. Duration of mechanical ventilation, coagulation profile, length of ICU stay, and mortality were the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Median lung injury scores were significantly lower in group H10 on days 5 (1.9 vs 1), 6 (1.4 vs 0.5), and 7 (1.3 vs 0.5). Group H10 had also a lower duration of mechanical ventilation than did group H5 (P = .037). The groups had no significant difference in coagulation parameters, length of ICU stay (P = .17), and mortality (P = .6).

CONCLUSIONS

Nebulized heparin 10,000 IU decreased lung injury scores and duration of mechanical ventilation but had no effect on length of ICU stay and mortality. Moreover, nebulized heparin 10,000 IU was safe and had no effect on coagulation parameters.

Nebulized heparin is associated with fewer days of mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Prolonged mechanical ventilation has the potential to aggravate or initiate pulmonary inflammation and cause lung damage through fibrin deposition. Heparin may reduce pulmonary inflammation and fibrin deposition. We therefore assessed whether nebulized heparin improved lung function in patients expected to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Methods

Fifty patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours were enrolled in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial of nebulized heparin (25,000 U) or placebo (normal saline) 4 or 6 hourly, depending on patient height. The study drug was continued while the patient remained ventilated to a maximum of 14 days from randomization.

Results

Nebulized heparin was not associated with a significant improvement in the primary end-point, the average daily partial pressure of oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen ratio while mechanically ventilated, but was associated with improvement in the secondary end-point, ventilator-free days amongst survivors at day 28 (22.6 ± 4.0 versus 18.0 ± 7.1, treatment difference 4.6 days, 95% CI 0.9 to 8.3, P = 0.02). Heparin administration was not associated with any increase in adverse events.

Conclusions

Nebulized heparin was associated with fewer days of mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients expected to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Further trials are required to confirm these findings.

Trial registration

The Australian Clinical Trials Registry (ACTR-12608000121369).