Frequency 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.

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.

The Management of Suspected Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in US Hospitals

Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) vary between hospitals. Recent guidelines recommend initiating alternative anticoagulant therapy in patients with suspected HIT while awaiting laboratory test results confirming the presence of heparin–PF-4 antibodies (PF-4). This retrospective chart review was designed to assess the current state of management of patients with thrombocytopenia suspected to be due to HIT at 26 US hospitals. Most hospitals (25 of 26; 96.2%) had guidelines in place for the management of suspected HIT, with 7 (26.9%) having a “halt heparin, test, and await results” (ie, “test and wait”) policy. One-third of hospitals had a wait time for obtaining PF-4 antibodies of 3 days or more. Hospital guidelines for the management of HIT may actually discourage the use of optimal HIT management strategies.

Diagnosis and management of maternal thrombocytopenia in pregnancy

Thrombocytopenia is a common finding in pregnancy, occurring in approximately 7-10% of pregnancies. It may be a diagnostic and management problem, and has many causes, some of which are specific to pregnancy. Although most cases of thrombocytopenia in pregnancy are mild, and have no adverse outcome for either mother or baby, occasionally a low platelet count may be part of a more complex disorder with significant morbidity and may be life-threatening. Overall, about 75% of cases are due to gestational thrombocytopenia, 15-20% secondary to hypertensive disorders; 3-4% due to an immune process, and the remaining 1-2% made up of rare constitutional thrombocytopenias, infections and malignancies. In this review, a diagnostic approach to investigating thrombocytopenia in pregnancy is presented, together with antenatal, anaesthetic and peri-natal management issues for mother and baby, followed by a detailed discussion on the specific causes of thrombocytopenia and the management options in each case.

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.

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.

How I diagnose and manage HIT

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic drug reaction caused by platelet-activating IgG antibodies that recognize platelet factor 4 (PF4)/polyanion complexes. Platelet activation assays, such as the serotonin-release assay, are superior to PF4-dependent immunoassays in discerning which heparin-induced antibodies are clinically relevant. When HIT is strongly suspected, standard practice includes substituting heparin with an alternative anticoagulant; the 2 US-approved agents are the direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) lepirudin and argatroban, which are "niche" agents used only to manage HIT. However, only ~ 10% of patients who undergo serological investigation for HIT actually have this diagnosis. Indeed, depending on the clinical setting, only 10%-50% of patients with positive PF4-dependent immunoassays have platelet-activating antibodies. Therefore, overdiagnosis of HIT can be minimized by insisting that a positive platelet activation assay be required for definitive diagnosis of HIT. For these reasons, a management strategy that considers the real possibility of non-HIT thrombocytopenia is warranted. One approach that I suggest is to administer an indirect, antithrombin (AT)-dependent factor Xa inhibitor (danaparoid or fondaparinux) based upon the following rationale: (1) effectiveness in treating and preventing HIT-associated thrombosis; (2) effectiveness in treating and preventing thrombosis in diverse non-HIT situations; (3) both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose protocols exist, permitting dosing appropriate for the clinical situation; (4) body weight-adjusted dosing protocols and availability of specific anti-factor Xa monitoring reduce risk of under- or overdosing (as can occur with partial thromboplastin time [PTT]-adjusted DTI therapy); (5) their long half-lives reduce risk of rebound hypercoagulability; (6) easy coumarin overlap; and (7) relatively low cost.

Anti-PF4/heparin antibody formation postorthopedic surgery thromboprophylaxis: the role of non-drug risk factors and evidence for a stoichiometry-based model of immunization

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is an antibody-mediated disorder exhibiting variable frequency in different clinical settings. Antibodies recognize PF4/heparin complexes formed at optimal stoichiometric molar ratios.

OBJECTIVE

To identify clinical factors influencing risk of anti-PF4/heparin immunization.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We performed observational studies and exploratory analyses of the frequency of anti-PF4/heparin antibody formation in 6324 patients who received enoxaparin or fondaparinux in four randomized controlled trials of postorthopedic surgery thromboprophylaxis. Variables included surgery type (knee vs. hip), timing of first anticoagulant dose (pre- vs. postsurgery), circumstances of surgery (elective vs. hip fracture), anticoagulant (enoxaparin vs. fondaparinux) and body-mass index (BMI). We applied a stoichiometry-based model that predicts immunization risk based on expected differences in PF4/anticoagulant ratios in different settings, and specifically used this model to predict the effect of increasing BMI quartiles upon relative risk (RR) of immunization for fondaparinux vs. enoxaparin.

RESULTS

Anti-PF4/heparin immunization was more frequent after knee vs. hip surgery (particularly for enoxaparin), and when enoxaparin was given post- rather than pre-elective surgery; however, the opposite occurred with hip fracture surgery, that is, antibody formation was more frequent when enoxaparin or fondaparinux was given presurgery. The RR of immunization for fondaparinux vs. enoxaparin decreased significantly for increasing BMI quartiles, an effect predominantly because of increasing immunization with enoxaparin at increasing BMI quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Several non-drug factors--including type and circumstances of surgery, timing of first anticoagulant dose and BMI--influence risk of anti-PF4/heparin antibody formation, consistent with a stoichiometry-based immunization model of PF4 and anticoagulant ratios occurring during the early peri-operative period.

Heparin-induced anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions: two distinct but overlapping syndromes

BACKGROUND

Heparin-induced anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions are of increasing clinical and scientific interest, particularly given the recent identification of a syndrome of heparin-induced anaphylaxis due to oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS), a contaminant in certain heparin preparations. However, heparin-induced anaphylactoid reactions also have been reported to be a consequence of immune-mediated heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT).

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the clinical features and pathophysiology of two distinct disorders, HIT-associated anaphylactoid reactions as well as anaphylaxis resulting from OSCS-contaminated heparin.

METHODS

We review literature describing these two types of heparin-induced anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions, and seek potential pathophysiologic links between them.

RESULTS

Intravenous bolus heparin administered to patients with circulating 'HIT antibodies', usually as a result of recent heparin therapy, can produce anaphylactoid reactions, probably as a consequence of in vivo activation of platelets and, possibly, leukocytes. Affected patients often evince fever/chills, hypertension and/or acute respiratory compromise ('pseudo-pulmonary embolism'). In contrast, heparin-induced anaphylaxis is caused by activation of the contact system, with formation of vasoactive kinins (bradykinin, des-arg(9)-bradykinin). This latter syndrome has been linked in an epidemic form to administration of OSCS-contaminated heparin; these reactions feature prominent hypotension and laryngeal edema. Hemodialysis patients are at increased risk for both syndromes. There is evidence that OSCS-contaminated heparin itself increases the risk of HIT compared with non-contaminated heparin.

CONCLUSION

Two distinct syndromes of heparin-induced anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions exist. These seem to share certain epidemiologic features, given that OSCS-contaminated heparin can produce anaphylaxis through contact system activation but also could increase risk of HIT and HIT-associated anaphylactoid reactions.

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].