Clinical Picture of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride locking for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults

BACKGROUND

Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency and performance. There are systematic variations in care: some practitioners use heparin (at different concentrations), whilst others use 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline). This review looks at the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking with heparin compared to normal saline, to see if the evidence establishes whether one is better than the other. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of intermittent locking of CVCs with heparin versus normal saline in adults to prevent occlusion.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 20 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in adults ≥ 18 years of age with a CVC that compared intermittent locking with heparin at any concentration versus normal saline. We excluded studies on infants and children from this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were occlusion of CVCs and duration of catheter patency. Our secondary outcomes were CVC-related bloodstream infections and CVC-related colonisation, mortality, haemorrhage, heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia, CVC-related thrombosis, number of additional CVC insertions, abnormality of coagulation profile and allergic reactions to heparin. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one new RCT with 30 participants for this update. We included a total of 12 RCTs with 2422 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all RCTs. We noted differences in methods used by the included studies and variation in heparin concentrations (10 to 5000 IU/mL), time to follow-up (1 to 251.8 days), and the unit of analysis used (participant, catheter, line access). Five studies included ICU (intensive care unit) patients, two studies included oncology patients, and the remaining studies included miscellaneous patients (chronic kidney disease, haemodialysis, home care patients, etc.). Primary outcomes Overall, combined results may show fewer occlusions with heparin compared to normal saline but this is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95; 10 studies; 1672 participants; low-certainty evidence). We pooled studies that used participant or catheter as the unit of analysis. We carried out subgroup analysis by unit of analysis. No clear differences were detected after testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.23). We found no clear evidence of a difference in the duration of catheter patency with heparin compared to normal saline (mean difference (MD) 0.44 days, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.99; 6 studies; 1788 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes We found no clear evidence of a difference in the following outcomes: CVC-related bloodstream infections (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.80; 3 studies; 1127 participants; very low-certainty evidence); mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31; 3 studies; 1100 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.74; 3 studies; 1197 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.27; 3 studies; 443 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes were unclear allocation concealment, suspicion of publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether intermittent locking with heparin results in fewer central venous catheter occlusions than intermittent locking with normal saline in adults. Low-certainty evidence suggests that heparin may have little or no effect on catheter patency duration. Although we found no evidence of differences in safety (CVC-related bloodstream infections, mortality, or haemorrhage), the combined studies were not powered to detect rare adverse events such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia. Further research conducted over longer periods would reduce the current uncertainties.

COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Analysis

Introduction

The World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on March 11, 2020. Two vaccine types were developed using two different technologies: viral vectors and mRNA. Thrombosis is one of the most severe and atypical adverse effects of vaccines. This study aimed to analyze published cases of thrombosis after COVID-19 vaccinations to identify patients' features, potential pathophysiological mechanisms, timing of appearance of the adverse events, and other critical issues.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic electronic search of scientific articles regarding COVID-19 vaccine-related thrombosis and its complications on the PubMed (MEDLINE) database and through manual searches. We selected 10 out of 50 articles from February 1 to May 5, 2021 and performed a descriptive analysis of the adverse events caused by the mRNA-based Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and the adenovirus-based AstraZeneca vaccine.

Results

In the articles on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the sample consisted of three male patients with age heterogeneity. The time from vaccination to admission was ≤3 days in all cases; all patients presented signs of petechiae/purpura at admission, with a low platelet count. In the studies on the AstraZeneca vaccine, the sample consisted of 58 individuals with a high age heterogeneity and a high female prevalence. Symptoms appeared around the ninth day, and headache was the most common symptom. The platelet count was below the lower limit of the normal range. All patients except one were positive for PF4 antibodies. The cerebral venous sinus was the most affected site. Death was the most prevalent outcome in all studies, except for one study in which most of the patients remained alive.

Discussion

Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is an unknown nosological phenomenon secondary to inoculation with the COVID-19 vaccine. Several hypotheses have been formulated regarding its physiopathological mechanism. Recent studies have assumed a mechanism that is assimilable to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, with protagonist antibodies against the PF4-polyanion complex. Viral DNA has a negative charge and can bind to PF4, causing VITT. New experimental studies have assumed that thrombosis is related to a soluble adenoviral protein spike variant, originating from splicing events, which cause important endothelial inflammatory events, and binding to endothelial cells expressing ACE2.

Conclusion

Further studies are needed to better identify VITT's pathophysiological mechanisms and genetic, demographic, or clinical predisposition of high-risk patients, to investigate the correlation of VITT with the different vaccine types, and to test the significance of the findings.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride locking for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults

BACKGROUND

Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency. There are systematic variations in care: some practitioners use heparin (at different concentrations), whilst others use 0.9% NaCl (normal saline). This review looks at the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking with heparin compared to 0.9% NaCl to see if the evidence establishes whether one is better than the other. This work is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking of CVCs with heparin versus normal saline (NS) in adults to prevent occlusion.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 11 June 2018) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 5). Searches were also carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and clinical trials databases (11 June 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in adults ≥ 18 years of age with a CVC that compared intermittent locking with heparin at any concentration versus NS. We applied no restriction on language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. We contacted trial authors to retrieve additional information, when necessary. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5 and assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting assessed outcomes using GRADE. We carried out prespecified subgroup analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new studies for this update (six prior studies were included in the original review), bringing the number of eligible studies to 11, with a total of 2392 participants. We noted differences in methods used by the included studies and variation in heparin concentrations (10 to 5000 IU/mL), time to follow-up (1 to 251.8 days), and the unit of analysis used (participant, catheter, line access).Combined results from these studies showed fewer occlusions with heparin than with NS (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95; P = 0.02; 1672 participants; 1025 catheters from 10 studies; I² = 14%) and provided very low-quality evidence.We carried out subgroup analysis by unit of analysis (testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.23; I² = 30.3%). When the unit of analysis was the participant, results show no clear differences in all occlusions between heparin and NS (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08; P = 0.15; 1672 participants; seven studies). Subgroup analysis using the catheter as the unit of analysis shows fewer occlusions with heparin use (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.95; P = 0.03; 1025 catheters; three studies). When the unit of analysis was line access, results show no clear differences in occlusions between heparin and NS (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40; 770 line accesses; one study).We found no clear differences in the duration of catheter patency (mean difference (MD) 0.44 days, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.99; P = 0.11; 1036 participants; 752 catheters; six studies; low-quality evidence).We found no clear evidence of a difference in the following: CVC-related sepsis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.03 to 19.54; P = 0.86; 1097 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence); mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31; P = 0.33; 1100 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence); haemorrhage at any site (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.07; P = 0.52; 1245 participants; four studies; moderate-quality evidence); or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.27; P = 0.31; 443 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence).The main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were unclear allocation concealment, imprecision, and suspicion of publication bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the very low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether intermittent locking with heparin results in fewer occlusions than intermittent locking with NS. Low-quality evidence suggests that heparin may have little or no effect on catheter patency. Although we found no evidence of differences in safety (sepsis, mortality, or haemorrhage), the combined trials are not powered to detect rare adverse events such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults

BACKGROUND

Heparin intermittent flushing is a standard practice in the maintenance of patency in central venous catheters. However, we could find no systematic review examining its effectiveness and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of intermittent flushing with heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline) solution in adults with central venous catheters in terms of prevention of occlusion and overall benefits versus harms.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched December 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11). Searches were also carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and clinical trials databases (December 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults 18 years of age and older with a central venous catheter (CVC) in which intermittent flushing with heparin (any dose with or without other drugs) was compared with 0.9% normal saline were included. No restriction on language was applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Trial authors were contacted to retrieve additional information, when necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

Six eligible studies with a total of 1433 participants were included. The heparin concentrations used in these studies were very different (10-5000 IU/mL), and follow-up varied from 20 days to 180 days. The overall risk of bias in the studies was low. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate for the main outcomes (occlusion of CVC, duration of catheter patency, CVC-related sepsis, mortality and haemorrhage at any site).Combined findings from three trials in which the unit of analysis was the catheter suggest that heparin was associated with reduced CVC occlusion rates (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.94). However, no clear evidence of a similar effect was found when the results of two studies in which the unit of analysis was the participant were combined (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.70), nor when findings were derived from one study, which considered total line accesses (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40). Furthermore, results for other estimated effects were found to be imprecise and compatible with benefit and harm: catheter duration in days (mean difference (MD) 0.41, 95% CI -1.29 to 2.12), CVC-related thrombosis (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99), CVC-related sepsis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.03), mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.32) and haemorrhage at any site (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.85).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no conclusive evidence of important differences when heparin intermittent flushing was compared with 0.9% normal saline flushing for central venous catheter maintenance in terms of efficacy or safety. As heparin is more expensive than normal saline, our findings challenge its continued use in CVC flushing outside the context of clinical trials.

Impact of Platelet Functional Assays on the Cost of Treating Suspected Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

Objectives:

To investigate the potential cost savings of using functional platelet assays to confirm the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT).

Methods:

This was a single-center study conducted in the United States. We performed a retrospective cost of illness analysis of suspected HIT, comparing patients with the serotonin release assay (SRA) ordered as part of their diagnostic evaluation to those who did not. The primary clinical end point was a composite of mortality and major bleed.

Results:

A total of 147 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria. An SRA was ordered in 53 patients of whom 17% were positive. Overall, SRA use did not reduce the composite primary clinical end point (32.1% vs 33%, P = .911). Also, there was no difference in the total cost of hospital stay (US $84781.1 vs US $78534.4, P = .409) nor in the direct medical costs related to HIT management (US $7473.5 vs US $8402.4, P = .393). Early ordering of the SRA (within 48 hours) was associated with shorter length of stay (20 vs 27 days, P = .029) but without a difference in cost of treatment.

Conclusion:

The use of SRA did not reduce the costs or improve clinical outcomes in patients with suspected HIT.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is caused by platelet-activating immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies that recognize multimolecular complexes of platelet factor 4 (PF4) bound to heparin or other polyanions. Most laboratory assays for HIT have a high sensitivity for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies and a negative test generally excludes HIT (high negative predictive value), especially in a setting of a low pretest probability. The magnitude of a positive test result correlates with greater likelihood of HIT. Therefore, a combined diagnostic approach that considers the clinical picture and the magnitude of a positive test result is recommended for accurate diagnosis of HIT.

HITlights: a career perspective on heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Two decades of research into heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) permit a personal historical perspective on this fascinating syndrome. Previously, the frequency of HIT was unknown, although complicating thrombosis was believed to be rare and primarily arterial. The opportunity to apply a remarkable test for "HIT antibodies"--the (14) C-serotonin-release assay (SRA)--to serial plasma samples obtained during a clinical trial of heparin thromboprophylaxis, provided insights into the peculiar nature of HIT, such as, its prothrombotic nature--including its strong association with venous thrombosis (RR = 11.6 [95%CI, 6.4-20.8; P < 0.0001); its more frequent occurrence with unfractionated versus low-molecular-weight heparin; the "iceberg" model, which states that among the many patients who form anti-PF4/heparin antibodies during heparin therapy, only a minority whose antibodies evince strong platelet-activating properties develop HIT; and the characteristic HIT timeline, whereby serum/plasma antibodies are readily detectable at or prior to the HIT-associated platelet count fall. Applying the SRA also to patients encountered in clinical practice led to recognition of warfarin-induced venous limb gangrene (for which HIT is a major risk factor via its extreme hypercoagulability) and delayed-onset HIT (whereby thrombocytopenia begins or worsens following heparin discontinuation, due to the ability of HIT antibodies strongly to activate platelets even in the absence of heparin--so-called heparin-"independent" platelet activation). Recent concepts include the increasing recognition of HIT "overdiagnosis" (due to the low diagnostic specificity of the widely-applied PF4-dependent immunoassays), and the observation that HIT-associated consumptive coagulopathy is a risk factor for treatment failure with PTT-adjusted direct thrombin inhibitor therapy ("PTT confounding" secondary to HIT-associated coagulopathy).

Management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a rare but severe prothrombotic adverse effect of heparin treatment. The underlying cause is the formation of highly immunogenic complexes between negatively charged heparin and positively charged platelet factor 4 (PF4). Resulting antibodies against these PF4/heparin complexes can activate platelets via the platelet FcγIIa receptor, leading to thrombin generation and thus to the paradox of a prothrombotic state despite thrombocytopenia and application of heparin. Prompt diagnosis of HIT is important in order to change treatment to prevent severe thromboembolic complications. However, this is often difficult as thrombocytopenia is frequent in hospitalized patients and the commercially available laboratory tests for HIT antibodies have a high negative predictive value but only a poor positive predictive value. This leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of HIT, which also bear the risk for adverse outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims at resuming recent data on HIT, thereby focusing on the role of new anticoagulants and providing a framework for diagnosis and treatment. Furthermore, it provides some insights into the pathogenesis of this peculiar adverse drug reaction and ventures a guess at its future relevance in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

New drugs which are strongly negatively charged should be assessed for their capacity to form complexes with PF4. If they do so, they bear the risk of inducing a HIT-like immune response. The immunology of HIT is still largely unresolved. Understanding HIT might provide insights into other immune and autoimmune response mechanisms.

Adverse effects of heparin

All the adverse effects of heparins are related to their wide variety of biological activities, with bleeding being the most important safety issue, resulting directly from the potency of heparin as an anticoagulant. However, it is hard to define the bleeding risk, since it depends on numerous parameters including the indication, dosage, method, and duration of heparin application, the clinical study design and definition of bleeding as well as patient characteristics and determinants of bleeding such as type of surgery and co-medication. Nonbleeding complications of heparins are caused by binding of heparin molecules to proteins other than antithrombin and to cells, which is generally more pronounced with unfractionated heparin than with low-molecular-weight heparins. Accordingly, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, the most severe nonbleeding adverse reaction, occurs about 10 times less with low-molecular-weight heparins than with unfractionated heparin. Frequent and therefore important adverse reactions of heparins are skin lesions resulting from delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. All the other undesirable effects are discussed as well, but they are mostly clinically irrelevant.

HIT paradigms and paradoxes

The current major problem with HIT is its overdiagnosis. This concept follows from the HIT central paradigm: HIT is caused by a subset of antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin complexes that have strong platelet-activating properties. Prospective studies show that only a minority of sera containing such antibodies exhibit platelet-activating properties. Ironically, the earliest tests for HIT--platelet activation assays--remain today the most diagnostically useful, particularly the washed platelet assays. But the wider application of PF4-dependent immunoassays, and their much greater sensitivity for the larger subset of non-platelet-activating (and non-HIT-inducing) antibodies, has resulted in HIT overdiagnosis in many centres. Studies of anti-PF4/heparin immunization in diverse clinical situations have provided insights into the factors that influence the HIT immune response. Besides the conundrum of anticoagulant-induced thrombosis (including its potentiation of coumarin-induced microthrombosis), HIT evinces numerous other paradoxes: (i) it is a platelet-activating disorder with venous thrombosis as its predominant clinical manifestation; (ii) 'delayed-onset' (or 'autoimmune') HIT can lead to dramatic worsening of HIT-associated thrombosis despite cessation of heparin; (iii) partial thromboplastin time (PTT) monitoring of direct thrombin inhibitor treatment - and confounding of PTT monitoring by HIT-associated consumptive coagulopathy - infers that the worst subset of HIT patients may fail this therapeutic approach; (iv) the highly sulfated pentasaccharide anticoagulant, fondaparinux, can (rarely) cause HIT yet appears to be an effective treatment for this disorder; and (v) the transience of the HIT immune response means that many patients with previous HIT can safely receive future heparin.

Prospective multicentre cohort study of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in acute ischaemic stroke patients

Acute ischaemic stroke patients sometimes receive heparin for treatment and/or prophylaxis of thromboembolic complications. This study was designed to elucidate the incidence and clinical features of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) in acute stroke patients treated with heparin. We conducted a prospective multicentre cohort study of 267 patients who were admitted to three stroke centres within 7 d after stroke onset. We examined clinical data until discharge and collected blood samples on days 1 and 14 of hospitalization to test anti-platelet factor 4/heparin antibodies (anti-PF4/H Abs) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); platelet-activating antibodies were identified by serotonin-release assay (SRA). Patients with a 4Ts score ≥4 points, positive-ELISA, and positive-SRA were diagnosed as definite HIT. Heparin was administered to 172 patients (64·4%: heparin group). Anti-PF4/H Abs were detected by ELISA in 22 cases (12·8%) in the heparin group. Seven patients had 4Ts ≥ 4 points. Among them, three patients (1·7% overall) were also positive by both ELISA and SRA. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score on admission was high (range, 16–23) and in-hospital mortality was very high (66·7%) in definite HIT patients. In this study, the incidence of definite HIT in acute ischaemic stroke patients treated with heparin was 1·7% (95% confidence interval: 0·4–5·0). The clinical severity and outcome of definite HIT were unfavourable.

Early-onset and persisting thrombocytopenia in post-cardiac surgery patients is rarely due to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, even when antibody tests are positive

BACKGROUND

The high frequency of thrombocytopenia in post-cardiac surgery patients makes it challenging to diagnose heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Two platelet count profiles are reported as indicating possible HIT in these patients: profile 1 describes a platelet count fall that begins between postoperative days 5 and 10, whereas profile 2 denotes early-onset thrombocytopenia that persists beyond day 5.

OBJECTIVES

To examine how these platelet count profiles correlate with antibody status and HIT post-cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively screened 581 cardiac surgery patients for heparin-dependent antibodies by platelet factor 4 (PF4)-heparin immunoassay and platelet-activation test, and performed daily platelet counts (until day 10) with 30-day follow-up.

RESULTS

All three patients with platelet count profile 1 tested positive for platelet-activating anti-PF4-heparin IgG antibodies [odds ratio (OR) 521.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9-34,000, P = 0.002], and were judged to have HIT. In contrast, none of 25 patients with early-onset and persisting thrombocytopenia (profile 2) was judged to have HIT, including five patients testing positive for platelet-activating anti-PF4-heparin IgG antibodies. In these patients, the frequency of heparin-dependent antibodies did not differ from that in non-thrombocytopenic controls, either for anti-PF4-heparin IgG (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.7-4.1, P = 0.31) or for platelet-activating antibodies (OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.6-5.7, P = 0.20). Multivariate analysis revealed that type of cardiac surgery, but not HIT antibody status, predicted early-onset and persisting thrombocytopenia. Together, these findings show that HIT was uncommon in this study population [overall frequency, 3/581 (0.5%), 95% CI 0.1-1.5%].

CONCLUSIONS

Thrombocytopenia that begins between 5 and 10 days post-cardiac surgery is highly predictive for HIT. In contrast, early-onset and persisting thrombocytopenia is usually caused by non-HIT factors with coinciding heparin-dependent antibody seroconversion.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a renal perspective

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a clinicopathologic syndrome in which one or more clinical events, usually thrombocytopenia or thrombosis, are temporally related to heparin administration and caused by HIT antibodies. Rapid and accurate diagnosis is essential given the high incidence of thrombosis at around the time of initial disease recognition. Discontinuation of heparin and initiation of alternative anticoagulants reduces HIT-associated morbidity and mortality. The clinical consequences of HIT in hemodialysis patients remain unclear, with several studies reporting no clinical sequelae and others describing complications such as thrombocytopenia or clotting of the extracorporeal circuit. Frequent clotting of the extracorporeal circuit has also been reported in HIT-antibody-positive patients on continuous veno-venous hemofiltration. Several recent findings are of particular interest to nephrologists. An acute systemic reaction has been described as a presentation of HIT in hemodialysis patients shortly after administration of an unfractionated heparin bolus. This syndrome is important to recognize as it might mimic a dialyzer reaction. More recently, the presence of a positive HIT-antibody test or increasing titers of HIT antibody were associated with increased mortality in hemodialysis patients, raising the question of whether these antibodies have a role in the increased cardiovascular mortality seen in these patients. HIT-antibody production is often transient and small numbers of hemodialysis patients with undetectable antibody levels have been rechallenged with heparin without adverse clinical consequences.

The costs of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a patient-based cost of illness analysis

SUMMARY BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Due to the complexity of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), currently available cost analyses are rough estimates. The objectives of this study were quantification of costs involved in HIT and identification of main cost drivers based on a patient-oriented approach.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with HIT (1995-2004, University-hospital Greifswald, Germany) based on a positive functional assay (HIPA test) were retrieved from the laboratory records and scored (4T-score) by two medical experts using the patient file. For cost of illness analysis, predefined HIT-relevant cost parameters (medication costs, prolonged in-hospital stay, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, laboratory tests, blood transfusions) were retrieved from the patient files. The data were analysed by linear regression estimates with the log of costs and a gamma regression model. Mean length of stay data of non-HIT patients were obtained from the German Federal Statistical Office, adjusted for patient characteristics, comorbidities and year of treatment. Hospital costs were provided by the controlling department.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

One hundred and thirty HIT cases with a 4T-score >or=4 and a positive HIPA test were analyzed. Mean additional costs of a HIT case were 9008 euro. The main cost drivers were prolonged in-hospital stay (70.3%) and costs of alternative anticoagulants (19.7%). HIT was more costly in surgical patients compared with medical patients and in patients with thrombosis. Early start of alternative anticoagulation did not increase HIT costs despite the high medication costs indicating prevention of costly complications. An HIT cost calculator is provided, allowing online calculation of HIT costs based on local cost structures and different currencies.

Management of anticoagulation in patients with subacute heparin-induced thrombocytopenia scheduled for heart transplantation

Anticoagulation management of patients with recent heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) requiring cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surgery is a serious challenge, and especially difficult in patients requiring urgent heart transplantation. As nonheparin anticoagulants during CPB bear a high risk of major bleeding, these patients are at risk of being taken off the transplant list. Short-term use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) for CPB, with restriction of UFH to the surgery itself, is safe and effective in patients with a history of HIT who test negative for antiplatelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies. We present evidence that it is safe to expand the concept of UFH reexposure to patients with subacute HIT (ie, those patients with recent HIT in whom the platelet count has recovered but in whom anti-PF4/heparin IgG antibodies remain detectable) requiring heart transplantation, if they test negative by a sensitive functional assay using washed platelets. This can be lifesaving in patients with end-stage heart failure.

Treatment and prevention of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

This chapter about the recognition, treatment, and prevention of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patient values may lead to different choices. Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: For patients receiving heparin in whom the clinician considers the risk of HIT to be > 1.0%, we recommend platelet count monitoring over no platelet count monitoring (Grade 1C). For patients who are receiving heparin or have received heparin within the previous 2 weeks, we recommend investigating for a diagnosis of HIT if the platelet count falls by >/= 50%, and/or a thrombotic event occurs, between days 5 and 14 (inclusive) following initiation of heparin, even if the patient is no longer receiving heparin therapy when thrombosis or thrombocytopenia has occurred (Grade 1C). For patients with strongly suspected (or confirmed) HIT, whether or not complicated by thrombosis, we recommend use of an alternative, nonheparin anticoagulant (danaparoid [Grade 1B], lepirudin [Grade 1C], argatroban [Grade 1C], fondaparinux [Grade 2C], or bivalirudin [Grade 2C]) over the further use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) therapy or initiation/continuation of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) [Grade 1B]. The guidelines include specific recommendations for nonheparin anticoagulant dosing that differ from the package inserts. For patients with strongly suspected or confirmed HIT, we recommend against the use of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) [coumarin] therapy until after the platelet count has substantially recovered (usually, to at least 150 x 10(9)/L) over starting VKA therapy at a lower platelet count (Grade 1B); that VKA therapy be started only with low maintenance doses (maximum, 5 mg of warfarin or 6 mg of phenprocoumon) over higher initial doses (Grade 1B); and that the nonheparin anticoagulant (eg, lepirudin, argatroban, danaparoid) be continued until the platelet count has reached a stable plateau, the international normalized ratio (INR) has reached the intended target range, and after a minimum overlap of at least 5 days between nonheparin anticoagulation and VKA therapy rather than a shorter overlap (Grade 1B). For patients receiving VKAs at the time of diagnosis of HIT, we recommend use of vitamin K (10 mg po or 5 to 10 mg IV) [Grade 1C].

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients requiring prolonged intensive care unit treatment after cardiopulmonary bypass

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is problematic in postcardiac surgery (CS) intensive care unit (ICU) patients, as there are multiple potential explanations for thrombocytopenia and the presence of anti-platelet factor 4/heparin antibodies is not highly specific for HIT. Two platelet count profiles for HIT - a 40% or greater fall in platelet count beginning on or after day 5 (pattern 1) and persisting thrombocytopenia (< 100 x 10(9) L(-1)) beyond day 7 (pattern 2) - have been described in post-CS patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined the platelet count profiles of 329 consecutive post-CS patients who required ICU treatment beyond 7 days. Although 70 patients (21.3%) developed thrombocytopenia (57.1% pattern 1, 42.9% pattern 2), the overall incidence of HIT was only 1.8% [6/329; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.7-3.9%] in these ICU patients, with more HIT patients showing a pattern 2 than a pattern 1 platelet count decrease (four vs. two patients). Notably, pattern 2 patients with HIT also showed a new proportional fall of > 30% in platelet count between postoperative days 5 and 10. Among the remaining 2242 post-CS patients without a prolonged ICU stay, only three (0.1%; 95% CI 0.03-0.4%) developed symptomatic HIT (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.3; P = 0.0002 vs. ICU patients), all presenting with pattern 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Among post-CS ICU patients, a postoperative platelet count fall between days 5 and 10 increases diagnostic specificity for HIT, irrespective of whether this platelet count fall occurs after postoperative platelet count recovery (pattern 1) or is superimposed upon persisting postoperative thrombocytopenia (pattern 2). A prospective study is required in order to validate the findings of this retrospective analysis.