Diagnostic accuracy of IgG-specific versus polyspecific enzyme-linked immunoassays in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evaluating Diagnostic Algorithms for Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia using Two Combined Automated Rapid Immunoassays

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an autoimmune disorder caused by antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin complexes. Rapid immunoassays (IAs) for detection of these antibodies mark a milestone in HIT diagnosis, despite a higher false-positive rate compared with functional platelet-activation assays. However, combining different rapid IAs may help to improve their diagnostic specificity. Here, we compared the individual performance of the latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA; HemosIL HIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 68.4%) and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA; HemosIL AcuStarHIT-Ab [PF4-H]; sensitivity 92.4%, specificity 85.8%) with their combined performance using two unique diagnostic algorithms in a single prospective cohort of suspected HIT patients. Using the simultaneous algorithm adapted from Warkentin et al, the combined LIA-CLIA had a sensitivity of 99.0% and specificity of 64.3%. The sequential algorithm adapted from Rittener-Ruff et al was applied in two theoretical scenarios to reflect real-world circumstances in diagnostic laboratories where access to clinical information is limited: (1) assuming all patients had an intermediate 4Ts score and (2) assuming all patients had a high 4Ts score. This algorithm correctly predicted HIT in 94.5% (high 4Ts) and 96.0% (intermediate 4Ts) and excluded HIT in 82.6% (high 4Ts) and 80.1% (intermediate 4Ts) of patients in either scenario, respectively. Although both combined algorithms improved diagnostic performance of individual IAs, the simultaneous algorithm showed fewer false predictions (7.9%) than the sequential algorithm (intermediate 4Ts: 37.6% and high 4Ts: 41.5%) and proved more practical as it does not rely on physician evaluations. Our findings highlight the importance of accounting for clinician and interlaboratory variability when evaluating diagnostic tests for HIT.

Optimization of laboratory diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia using HemosIL-AcuStar-HIT-IgG assay

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine an optimal cutoff value for the newly available HemosIL-AcuStar-HIT-IgG assay (AcuStar) for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT).

METHOD

We evaluated the performance of AcuStar using serotonin release assay (SRA) as the gold standard and incorporated 4T score calculation in a cohort of suspected HIT cases. Statistical analysis was performed to determine optimal cutoff value for the diagnosis of HIT.

RESULT

A diagnosis of HIT can be excluded with a platelet factor 4 (PF4) value of <0.4 U/mL by AcuStar and 4T score in the low-risk category (≤3). All other cases will require confirmation with a functional test.

CONCLUSION

Our study resulted in the implementation of a diagnostic algorithm for laboratory diagnosis of HIT, which incorporates pretest calculation of 4T score and AcuStar as a screening test, with reflex confirmation by SRA. This new algorithm resulted in extended hours of test availability and a more rapid turnaround time in reporting PF4 results.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: An illustrated review

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immune-mediated adverse drug effect from unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin that results in thrombocytopenia and potentially catastrophic thrombosis. HIT occurs due to the development of platelet-activating antibodies against multimolecular complexes of platelet factor 4 and heparin. Given the frequency of thrombocytopenia and heparin use among hospitalized patients, calculation of the 4Ts Score is recommended to identify patients at increased likelihood of HIT and direct further evaluation. In patients with an intermediate or high probability 4Ts Score, an immunoassay and functional assay are recommended to confirm or refute the diagnosis of HIT. Heparin avoidance and initiation of nonheparin anticoagulation are the mainstays of acute HIT management. In this illustrated review, we provide visual summaries of the diagnosis and management of HIT, highlighting connections between pathophysiology and clinical care as well as summarizing efforts in quality improvement in the field. We further emphasize common pitfalls and pearls in diagnosis and management to encourage evidence-based care. We include graphical representation of the unique challenges of HIT with cardiopulmonary bypass and also delineate autoimmune HIT and its subtypes.

Breast cancer cell-based ELISA: a potential material for better detection of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia antibodies

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is caused by newly formed platelet-activating antibodies against complexes formed between platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin (H). HIT can result in life-threatening complications; thus, early detection of HIT antibodies is crucial for the treatment of the disease. The enzyme-linked immune absorbance assay (ELISA) for the identification of HIT antibodies is widely used in many laboratories, but in general, this test provides only ∼50% accuracy while other methods show multiple limitations. Here, we developed a new cell-based ELISA to improve the detection of HIT antibodies. Instead of immobilizing PF4 or PF4/H complexes directly onto a plate as in the standard ELISA, we added the complexes on breast cancer cells, i.e., cell line MDA-MB-231, and applied the same protocol for antibody detection. Using confocal laser scanning microscopy and flow cytometry for the characterization of bound complexes, we identified two types of HIT-mimicked antibodies (KKO and 1E12), which were able to differentiate from the non-HIT antibody (RTO). PF4-treated MDA-MB-231 cells allowed binding of HIT-mimicked antibodies better than PF4/H complexes. With human sera, the cell-based ELISA allowed better differentiation of clinically relevant from non-clinically relevant HIT antibodies as compared with the standard ELISA. Our findings provide a potential approach that contributes to the development of better assays for the detection of HIT antibodies.

Cerebral Venous Thrombosis in Patients With Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) has recently been reported as a common thrombotic manifestation in association with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, a syndrome that mimics heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and occurs after vaccination with adenovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. We aimed to systematically review the incidence, clinical features, and prognosis of CVT occurring in patients with HIT.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021249652). MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched up to June 1, 2021 for HIT case series including >20 patients, or any report of HIT-related CVT. Demographic, neuroradiological, clinical, and mortality data were retrieved. Meta-analysis of proportions with random-effect modeling was used to derive rate of CVT in HIT and in-hospital mortality. Pooled estimates were compared with those for CVT without HIT and HIT without CVT, to determine differences in mortality.

RESULTS

From 19073 results, we selected 23 case series of HIT (n=1220) and 27 cases of HIT-related CVT (n=27, 71% female). CVT developed in 1.6% of 1220 patients with HIT (95% CI,1.0%-2.5%, I²=0%). Hemorrhagic brain lesions occurred in 81.8% of cases of HIT-related CVT and other concomitant thrombosis affecting other vascular territory was reported in 47.8% of cases. In-hospital mortality was 33.3%. HIT-related CVT carried a 29% absolute increase in mortality rate compared with historical CVT controls (33.3% versus 4.3%, P<0.001) and a 17.4% excess mortality compared with HIT without CVT (33.3% versus 15.9%, P=0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

CVT is a rare thrombotic manifestation in patients with HIT. HIT-related CVT has higher rates of intracerebral hemorrhage and a higher mortality risk, when compared with CVT in historical controls. The recently reported high frequency of CVT in patients with vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia was not observed in HIT, suggesting that additional pathophysiological mechanisms besides anti-platelet factor-4 antibodies might be involved in vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia-related CVT.

Diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: The need for accuracy and speed

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic condition resulting from pathogenic antibodies to complexes of heparin and platelet factor 4 (PF4). The diagnosis of HIT can be challenging due to the widespread use of heparin and the frequency of thrombocytopenia in hospitalized patients. Laboratory testing for HIT typically includes an immunoassay to detect antibodies to PF4-heparin and a functional assay. Current HIT diagnostic algorithms recommend using the 4Ts score to determine the need for HIT laboratory testing. Automated calculation of HIT clinical prediction scores in the electronic health record may improve the identification of patients who should undergo HIT testing. Another challenge in the management of patients with suspected HIT is the turnaround time of the laboratory testing needed to confirm the diagnosis. Due to the high daily thrombotic risk of HIT, clinicians must treat patients with intermediate to high pretest likelihood of HIT empirically while awaiting the test results. Treatment for HIT often involves alternative anticoagulants that lack reversal agents, which may increase bleeding risk, prolong hospital stays, and increase costs for patients suspected of having HIT. Rapid immunoassays hold promise to improve the speed of HIT diagnosis. These assays must retain a very high sensitivity for this "can't miss" diagnosis, yet have sufficient specificity to be of diagnostic value. A Bayesian approach has been proposed using two rapid immunoassays in succession, which decreased analytic turnaround time to 60 minutes. Such an approach has the potential to be a much-needed clinical advance in improving accuracy and speed in the diagnosis of HIT.

Evaluation of laboratory assays for anti-platelet factor 4 antibodies after ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 vaccination

INTRODUCTION

Vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) following ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 vaccine has been described, associated with unusual site thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, raised D-dimer, and high-titer immunoglobulin-G (IgG) class anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) have been shown to detect anti-PF4 in patients with VITT, but chemiluminescence assays do not reliably detect them. ELISA assays are not widely available in diagnostic laboratories, and, globally, very few laboratories perform platelet activation assays.

METHODS

Assays that are commercially available in the United Kingdom were evaluated for their ability to identify anti-PF4 antibodies in samples from patients with suspected VITT. Four IgG-specific ELISAs, two polyspecific ELISAs, and four rapid assays were performed on samples from 43 patients with suspected VITT from across the United Kingdom. Cases were identified after referral to the UK Expert Haematology Panel multidisciplinary team and categorized into unlikely, possible, or probable VITT.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We demonstrated that the HemosIL AcuStar HIT-IgG, HemosIL HIT-Ab, Diamed PaGIA gel, and STic Expert assays have poor sensitivity for VITT in comparison to ELISA. Where these assays are used for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) diagnosis, laboratories should ensure that requests for suspected VITT are clearly identified so that an ELISA is performed. No superiority of IgG-ELISAs over polyspecific ELISAs in sensitivity to VITT could be demonstrated. No single ELISA method detected all possible/probable VITT cases; if a single ELISA test is negative, a second ELISA or a platelet activation assay should be considered where there is strong clinical suspicion.

Serotonin-release assay-positive but platelet factor 4-dependent enzyme-immunoassay negative: HIT or not HIT?

IgG-specific and polyspecific PF4-dependent enzyme-immunoassays (EIAs) have exceptionally high sensitivity (≥99%) for diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), a drug reaction caused by platelet-activating antibodies detectable by serotonin-release assay (SRA). The IgG-specific EIAs are recommended for screening, as their high sensitivity is accompanied by relatively high specificity vis-à-vis polyspecific EIAs. We investigated the frequency of SRA-positive/EIA-negative (SRA+/EIA-) HIT, prompted by referral to our reference HIT laboratory of serial blood samples from a patient ("index case") with false-negative IgG-specific EIAs. Despite initial clinical suspicion for HIT, repeat negative IgG-specific EIAs prompted heparin resumption, which triggered recurrent thrombocytopenia and near-fatal cardiac arrest, indicating likely post-heparin HIT-associated anaphylactoid reaction. Further investigations revealed a strong-positive SRA, whether performed with heparin alone, PF4 alone, or PF4/heparin, with inhibition by Fc receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody (indicating IgG-mediated platelet activation); however, five different IgG-specific immunoassays yielded primarily negative (or weak-positive) results. To investigate the frequency of SRA+/EIA- HIT, we reviewed the laboratory and clinical features of patients with this serological profile during a 6-year period in which our reference laboratory investigated for HIT using both SRA and IgG-specific EIA. Although ~0.2% of 8546 patients had an SRA+/EIA- profile, further review of 15 such cases indicated clerical/laboratory misclassification or false-positive SRA in all, with no SRA+/EIA- HIT case identified. We conclude that while SRA+/EIA- HIT is possible-as shown by our index case-this clinical picture is exceptionally uncommon. Moreover, the requirement for a positive EIA is a useful quality control maneuver that reduces risk of reporting a false-positive SRA result.

Heparin induced thrombocytopenia: position paper from the Italian Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SISET)

Heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a rare immune mediated adverse drug reaction occurring after exposure to heparin. It is a serious and potentially fatal condition, which may be associated with the development of arterial or venous thrombotic events. Although known for many years, HIT is still often misdiagnosed. Pre- test clinical probability, screening for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies and documentation of their platelet activating capacity are the cornerstones of diagnosis. However, both clinical algorithms and test modalities have limited predictive values and limited diffusion so that the diagnosis and management is challenging in the clinical practice. For this reason, there is an unmet need for novel rational non-anticoagulant therapies based on the pathogenesis of HIT.The present paper reports the position of the Italian Society on Haemostasis and Thrombosis (SISET) in order to increase awareness of HIT among clinicians and other health care professionals and to provide information on the most appropriate management.

Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia: A Focus on Thrombosis

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is an immune-mediated disorder caused by antibodies that recognize complexes of platelet factor 4 and heparin. Thrombosis is a central and unpredictable feature of this syndrome. Despite optimal management, disease morbidity and mortality from thrombosis remain high. The hypercoagulable state in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is biologically distinct from other thrombophilic disorders in that clinical complications are directly attributable to circulating ultra-large immune complexes. In some individuals, ultra-large immune complexes elicit unchecked cellular procoagulant responses that culminate in thrombosis. To date, the clinical and biologic risk factors associated with thrombotic risk in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia remain elusive. This review will summarize our current understanding of thrombosis in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with attention to its clinical features, cellular mechanisms, and its management.

Prospective evaluation of two specific IgG immunoassays (HemosIL® AcuStar HIT-IgG and HAT45G® ) for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: A Bayesian approach

INTRODUCTION

The accurate diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is essential to ensure adequate treatment and prevent complications. First step diagnosis test are immunoassays including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and rapid immunoassays.

METHODS

Using a Bayesian approach, we prospectively evaluated the performance of the IgG PF4/polyvinylsulfonate ELISA and a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), which are specific for IgG and use the same antigenic target to detect HIT antibodies.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-four 184 consecutive patients with an intermediate (n = 159) or high (n = 25) clinical pretest probability of HIT based on the 4Ts score or platelet pattern were included. Both immunoassays (IAs) were performed on all 184 samples, and definite HIT was confirmed with a positive serotonin release assay in 29 patients (12.7%). The sensitivity (Ss) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ELISA were excellent (100%) allowing HIT to be excluded with good confidence when the test was negative. In addition, the Ss and NPV of the CLIA equalled 93.1% and 98.6%, respectively, as it was negative in two definite HIT. When the CLIA was negative, the post-test probability of HIT was 0.7% in case of intermediate risk. Although there was excellent agreement between CLIA and ELISA results, the quantitative values provided by the two IAs were not correlated.

CONCLUSION

AcuStar HIT^® detects more than 90% of HIT, as do all rapid IAs, and appears to be a good tool for excluding HIT when the pretest probability is intermediate. A chemiluminescent signal higher than 10 IU/mL is highly predictive of definite HIT with a PPV of 100%.

Pathogenesis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

There are currently no effective substitutes for high intensity therapy with unfractionated heparin (UFH) for cardiovascular procedures based on its rapid onset of action, ease of monitoring and reversibility. The continued use of UFH in these and other settings requires vigilance for its most serious nonhemorrhagic complication, heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). HIT is an immune prothrombotic disorder caused by antibodies that recognize complexes between platelet factor 4 (PF4) and polyanions such as heparin (H).The pathogenicity of anti-PF4/H antibodies is likely due to the formation of immune complexes that initiate intense procoagulant responses by vascular and hematopoietic cells that lead to the generation of platelet microparticles, monocyte and endothelial cell procoagulant activity, and neutrophil extracellular traps, among other outcomes. The development of anti-PF4/H antibodies after exposure to UFH greatly exceeds the incidence of clinical disease, but the biochemical features that distinguish pathogenic from nonpathogenic antibodies have not been identified. Diagnosis relies on pretest clinical probability, screening for anti-PF4/H antibodies and documentation of their platelet activating capacity. However, both clinical algorithms and test modalities have limited predictive values making diagnosis and management challenging. Given the unacceptable rates of recurrent thromboembolism and bleeding associated with current therapies, there is an unmet need for novel rational nonanticoagulant therapeutics based on the pathogenesis of HIT. We will review recent developments in our understanding of the pathogenesis of HIT and its implications for future approaches to diagnosis and management.

Challenges in Detecting Clinically Relevant Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Antibodies

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an antibody-mediated hypercoagulable state featuring high thrombosis risk and distinct pathogenesis involving immunoglobulin G-mediated platelet activation. The target of the immune response is a cationic “self” protein, platelet factor 4 (PF4), rendered antigenic by heparin. A key problem is that only a minority of anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies induced by heparin are pathogenic, i.e., capable of causing platelet activation and thereby clinical HIT. Since thrombocytopenia occurs frequently in hospitalized, heparin-treated patients, testing for “HIT antibodies” is common; thus, the problem of distinguishing between pathogenic and nonpathogenic antibodies is important. The central concept is that those antibodies that have platelet-activating properties demonstrable in vitro correlate well with pathogenicity, as shown by platelet activation tests such as the serotonin-release assay (SRA) and heparin-induced platelet activation assay. However, in most circumstances, immunoassays are used for first-line testing, and so it is important for clinicians to appreciate which immunoassay result profiles—in the appropriate clinical context—predict the presence of platelet-activating antibodies (Bayesian analysis). Clinicians with access to rapid, on-demand HIT immunoassays (e.g., particle gel immunoassay, latex immunoturbidimetric assay, chemiluminescent immunoassay) can look beyond simple dichotomous result interpretation (“negative”/“positive”) and incorporate semiquantitative interpretation, where, for example, a strong-positive immunoassay result (or even combination of two immunoassays) points to a greater probability of detecting platelet-activating antibodies, and hence supporting a diagnosis of HIT. Recent recognition of “SRA-negative HIT” has increased the importance of semiquantitative interpretation of immunoassays, given that strong immunoassay reactivity is a potential clue indicating possible HIT despite a (false) negative platelet activation assay.

Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia for the Perioperative and Critical Care Clinician

Purpose of Review

This review will illustrate the importance of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in the intraoperative and critical care settings.

Recent Findings

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) occurs more frequently in surgical patients compared with medical patients due to the inflammatory release of platelet factor 4 and perioperative heparin exposure. Recognition of this disease requires a high index of suspicion. Diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies have been expanded and refined in recent years.

Summary

HIT is a condition where antibodies against the heparin/platelet factor 4 complex interact with platelet receptors to promote platelet activation, aggregation, and thrombus formation. Our review will focus on intraoperative and postoperative considerations related to HIT to help the clinician better manage this rare but often devastating hypercoagulable disease process.

Serotonin-release assay-negative heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic drug reaction caused by platelet-activating anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies. Pathogenic HIT antibodies can be detected by the serotonin-release assay (SRA), a platelet activation test. We have regarded the SRA performed in our medical community ("McMaster" SRA) as having high sensitivity and specificity. Recently, the concept of "SRA-negative HIT" has been proposed for enzyme-immunoassay (EIA)-positive/SRA-negative patients with a HIT-compatible clinical picture, who test positive in a PF4-enhanced platelet activation assay. After identifying an index case of SRA-negative HIT, we estimated the frequency of this condition by performing the "PF4-SRA" (modified SRA using high concentrations of added PF4 rather than heparin) in EIA-positive patients from a cohort study evaluating clinical and laboratory diagnosis of HIT. We defined SRA-negative HIT as patients meeting three criteria: clinical picture compatible with HIT (4Ts ≥ 4 points); EIA-positive (≥1.00 units); and PF4-SRA-positive. Among 430 patients, 35 were EIA-positive/SRA-positive and 27 were EIA-positive/SRA-negative. Among these 27 SRA-negative patients, three were found to have subthreshold levels of platelet-activating antibodies by PF4-SRA, of whom one met clinical criteria for SRA-negative HIT. Thus, based on identifying one patient with SRA-negative HIT within a cohort study that found 35 SRA-positive HIT patients, we estimate the sensitivity of the McMaster SRA for diagnosis of HIT to be 35/36 (97.2%; 95% CI, 85.8-99.9%). Although the McMaster SRA is highly sensitive for HIT, occasional SRA-negative but EIA-positive patients strongly suspected of having HIT can have this diagnosis supported by a PF4-enhanced activation assay such as the PF4-SRA.

The risk of major bleeding in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

The presence of a hypercoagulable disorder such as heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) may protect against anticoagulant-associated bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence of major bleeding in patients with suspected HIT.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 310 patients suspected of having HIT from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and an affiliated community hospital. We compared the cumulative incidence of major bleeding following suspicion for HIT by ultimate HIT status (HIT+ or HIT-) and exposure to an alternative anticoagulant (Tx+ or Tx-). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of new/progressive thrombosis and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

The incidence of major bleeding was high in the HIT+Tx+, HIT- Tx+, and HIT-Tx- groups (35.7%, 44.0%, and 37.3%, respectively). The time to first major bleeding event did not differ between groups (P = .24). Factors associated with increased risk of major bleeding included intensive care unit admission (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.44-3.47), platelet count < 25 × 109 /L (HR 2.13, 1.10-4.12), and renal dysfunction (HR 1.56, 1.06-2.27); 35.7% of HIT+Tx+, 13.8% HIT-Tx+, and 9.3% of HIT-Tx- patients experienced new or progressive thrombosis. Mortality was similar among the three groups (26.2% HIT+Tx+, 34.5% HIT-Tx+, and 26.7% of HIT-Tx- [P = .34]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with suspected HIT, major bleeding was common regardless of HIT status. Contrary to our hypothesis, HIT+ patients were not protected from major bleeding. A better understanding of bleeding risk is needed to inform management decisions in patients with suspected HIT.

Comparison of polyspecific versus IgG specific ELISA in predominately cardiac patients with suspected heparin induced thrombocytopenia

A diagnosis of heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) must often be made based on clinical and laboratory evidence. This was a quasi-experimental study of patients admitted from June 2016 to October 2017. The primary endpoint was the incidence of false positive results in polyspecific and IgG specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); then we compared the sensitivity and specificity of each assays in predominately cardiac patients with suspected HIT. A sensitivity/specificity analysis was conducted using serotonin release assay (SRA) as the 'gold standard'. The secondary outcome measures included length of hospital stay. We identified a total of 155 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Confirmatory tests with SRA on both groups were completed; false positive result was higher in the polyspecific group when compared to the IgG group [60% vs. 5%]. The IgG specific ELISA test yielded a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 95% however, the polyspecific ELISA had a low yield for specificity of 24% but maintained 100% sensitivity. In the IgG specific group with HIT-, their median length of stay was halved compared to those who were HIT + ; hospital LOS in days, IQR [30 (27-81) vs. 15 (7-33) p = 0.023] and a shorter median LOS in the ICU, IQR [24 (5-47) vs. 6 (2-14); p = 0.079]. Hospital or ICU LOS was the same in both (HIT+ and HIT-) groups managed with polyspecific ELISA. The IgG specific test had few false positive results and a high sensitivity score. Ensuring appropriate testing can bring a substantial decrease in drug expenditure, reduced length of stay and prevent unnecessary anticoagulation.

Prospective comparison of the HEP score and 4Ts score for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

The HIT Expert Probability (HEP) score compared favorably with the 4Ts score in a retrospective study. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the HEP score compared with the 4Ts score in a prospective cohort of 310 patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). A member of the clinical team calculated the HEP score and 4Ts score. An independent panel adjudicated HIT status based on a clinical summary as well as the results of HIT laboratory testing. The prevalence of HIT in the study population was 14.7%. At a cutoff of ≥3, the HEP score was 95.3% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.2-99.4) and 35.7% specific (95% CI, 29.8-42.0) for HIT. A 4Ts score of ≥4 had a sensitivity of 97.7% (95% CI, 86.2-99.8) and specificity of 32.9% (95% CI, 27.2-39.1). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUCs) for the HEP score and 4Ts score were similar (0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87] vs 0.76 [95% CI, 0.69-0.83]; P = .12). The HEP score exhibited a significantly higher AUC than the 4Ts score in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) (0.86 vs 0.79; P = .03). Among trainee scorers, the HEP score performed significantly better than the 4Ts score (AUC, 0.80 vs 0.73; P = .03). Our data suggest that either the 4Ts score or the HEP score may be used in clinical practice. The HEP score may be preferable in ICU patients and among less experienced clinicians.

Timeline of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia seroconversion in serial plasma samples tested using an automated latex immunoturbidimetric assay

INTRODUCTION

HIT is caused by platelet-activating IgG that recognize multimolecular PF4/heparin complexes. HIT antibodies are generally detectable by PF4-dependent enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and by platelet serotonin-release assay (SRA) at the beginning of the HIT-related platelet count fall. We determined whether an automated immunoassay for HIT, the latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA), also detects antibodies early during the course of HIT. The LIA was also used to evaluate a patient with putative SRA-negative HIT.

METHODS

We evaluated the timing and magnitude of LIA reactivity in serial plasma samples obtained from 19 SRA-positive patients (17 with abnormal platelet count changes indicating HIT; two with subclinical seroconversion) and one putative SRA-negative HIT patient, all obtained from patients who participated in a clinical trial of heparin thromboprophylaxis. We determined LIA status at the onset of the HIT-related platelet count fall.

RESULTS

The LIA was positive in all 19 SRA-positive patients (median value, 7.3 U/mL [range, 1.2-35.5]; cutoff, 1.0 U/mL); for all 13 evaluable patients for whom an informative plasma sample was available at (or shortly before) the onset of the HIT-related platelet count fall, LIA reactivity was positive. Heterogeneity in seroconversion using the LIA was observed; some patients exhibited gradual increases in reactivity, whereas other patients showed rapid increase in reactivity over a few days. The single clinical trial patient who met clinical-pathological criteria for "SRA-negative HIT" tested LIA-positive.

CONCLUSION

The LIA detects HIT antibodies at the beginning of the HIT-associated platelet count fall. The LIA was also positive in a patient with SRA-negative HIT.

Laboratory diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a clinical-pathological disorder; thus, laboratory testing for the pathogenic platelet-activating antiplatelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies is central for diagnosis. The "iceberg" model summarizes the inter-relationship between platelet activation assays and PF4-dependent immunoassays, with platelet-activating antibodies comprising a subset of anti-PF4/heparin antibodies. The platelet serotonin-release assay (SRA), performed by reference laboratories, has high sensitivity and specificity for HIT (~95% each), and is especially suited for detecting highly pathogenic HIT sera containing both heparin-dependent and heparin-independent platelet-activating antibodies; this latter subgroup of antibodies explains "autoimmune HIT" disorders (delayed-onset, persisting, spontaneous, heparin "flush," fondaparinux-associated). Recently, SRA-negative HIT has become recognized, in which serum from some HIT patients contains subthreshold levels of platelet-activating antibodies (by SRA) that become detectable using a PF4-enhanced platelet activation assay. Unusual immunologic features of HIT include early antibody detectability (at onset of platelet count fall) and antibody transience (seroreversion). Widely available PF4-dependent enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) have high sensitivity but poor specificity for HIT, although specificity is enhanced with IgG-specific EIAs and strong positive results; unfortunately, EIA results are usually not available in real time. Automated rapid immunoassays, such as the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA), facilitate real-time laboratory diagnosis. Recently available likelihood ratio (LR) data for positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) test results allow clinicians to adjust their pretest probabilities for HIT, using Bayesian analysis, into real-time posttest probabilities that are dramatically increased (test positive) or decreased (test negative). Moreover, (semi-)quantitative CLIA- and LIA-positive results (weak, moderate, strong positive) can further refine the posttest probability of HIT.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia during extracorporeal life support: incidence, management and outcomes

Background

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a severe antibody-mediated reaction leading to transient prothrombosis. However, its incidence in patients on extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is not well described. The aim of this systematic review was to report the incidence of HIT in patients on ECLS, as well as compare the characteristics and outcomes of HIT in patients undergoing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and veno-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO).

Methods

An electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature examining outcomes of patients with HIT on ECLS. All identified articles were systematically assessed using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Random effects meta-analysis as well as univariate analysis was performed.

Results

Of 309 patients from six retrospective studies undergoing ECLS, 83% were suspected, and 17% were confirmed to have HIT. Due to the sparsity of relevant retrospective data regarding patients with confirmed HIT on ECLS, patient-based data was subsequently collected on 28 patients from case reports and case series. Out of these 28 patients, 53.6% and 46.4% of them underwent VA-ECMO and VV-ECMO, respectively. Patients on VA-ECMO had a lower median platelet count nadir (VA-ECMO: 26.0 vs. VV-ECMO: 45.0 per µL, P=0.012) and were more likely to experience arterial thromboembolism (VA-ECMO: 53.3% vs. VV-ECMO: 0.0%, P=0.007), though there was a trend towards decreased likelihood of experiencing ECLS circuit oxygenator thromboembolism (VA-ECMO: 0.0% vs. VV-ECMO: 30.8%, P=0.075) and thromboembolism necessitating ECLS device or circuit exchange (VA-ECMO: 13.3% vs. VV-ECMO 53.8%, P=0.060). Kaplan-Meier survival plots including time from ECLS initiation reveal no significant differences in survival in patients supported on VA-ECMO as compared to VV-ECMO (P=0.300).

Conclusions

Patients who develop HIT on VA-ECMO are more likely to experience more severe thrombocytopenia and arterial thromboembolism than those on VV-ECMO. Further research in this area and development of standardized protocols for the monitoring, diagnosis and management of HIT in patients on ECLS support are warranted.