Dataset Information

Anticoagulation in syncardia total artificial heart recipients: anti-factor Xa or activated partial thromboplastin time?

ABSTRACT: Although the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) has historically been the method of choice for anticoagulation monitoring in patients undergoing mechanical circulatory support with intravenous unfractionated heparin, it is being progressively superseded by the anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) method. A retrospective single-arm, single-centre analysis of 20 patients who underwent total artificial heart implantation entailed simultaneous determinations of aPTT and anti-Xa. Agreement between these parameters was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Despite a positive correlation between aPTT and anti-Xa, normal target ranges were poorly aligned: from 5th to 30th postoperative day, for anti-Xa values of 0.2 and 0.4 U/ml corresponding aPTT values were 52.1 and 65.2 s, 7.9 and 14.8 lower than predicted values, respectively. This was not associated with thromboembolic sequalae. It was not possible to demonstrate a significant relationship between the predictor variables (postoperative day; white blood cell count; C-reactive protein concentration; alanine transaminase and alkaline phosphatase level; bilirubin; haemoglobin; albumin and total protein concentration) and the agreement between aPTT and anti-Xa levels. In summary, when anti-Xa levels were used to guide anticoagulation therapy, corresponding aPTT levels were low with respect to target range. Methodology applied in this study is generalizable to other forms of mechanical circulatory support.

SUBMITTER: Monteagudo-Vela M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8766202 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLaboratory activated partial thromboplastin time (LAB-aPTT) is a widely used laboratory assay for monitoring unfractionated heparin (UFH) therapy during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). But LAB-aPTT is confined to a central laboratory, and the procedure is time-consuming. In comparison, point-of-care aPTT (POC-aPTT) is a convenient and quick assay, which might be a promising method for anticoagulation monitoring in ECMO. This study was aimed to evaluate the agreement between POC-aPTT (hemochron Jr. Signature instruments) and LAB-aPTT for anticoagulation monitoring in adult ECMO patients.MethodsData of ECMO-supported adult patients anticoagulated with UFH in our institute from January 2017 to December 2020 was retrospectively reviewed. POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT results measured simultaneously were paired and included in the analysis. The correlation between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Bias between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT were described with the Bland-Altman method. Influence factors for bias were identified using multinomial logistic regression analysis.ResultsA total 286 pairs of aPTT results from 63 patients were included in the analysis. POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT correlated weakly (r = 0.385, P < 0.001). The overall bias between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT was 7.78 [95%CI (-32.49, 48.05)] s. The overall bias between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT ratio (to normal value) was 0.54 [95%CI (-0.68, 1.76)]. A higher plasma fibrinogen level [OR 1.353 (1.057, 1.733), P = 0.017] was associated with a higher chance of POC-aPTT underestimating LAB-aPTT. While a lower plasma fibrinogen level [OR 0.809 (0.679, 0.963), P = 0.017] and lower UFH rate [OR 0.928 (0.868, 0.992), P = 0.029] were associated with a higher chance of POC-aPTT overestimating LAB-aPTT.ConclusionThe present study showed poor agreement between POC-aPTT and LAB-aPTT. POC-aPTT was not suitable for anticoagulation monitoring in adult ECMO patients.

Project description:BackgroundA substantial fraction of all American healthcare expenditures are potentially wasted, and practices that are not evidence-based could contribute to such waste. We sought to characterize whether Prothrombin Time (PT) and activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT) tests of preoperative patients are used in a way unsupported by evidence and potentially wasteful.Methods and findingsWe evaluated prospectively-collected patient data from 19 major teaching hospitals and 8 hospital-affiliated surgical centers in 7 states (Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania) and the District of Columbia. A total of 1,053,472 consecutive patients represented every patient admitted for elective surgery from 2009 to 2012 at all 27 settings. A subset of 682,049 patients (64.7%) had one or both tests done and history and physical (H&P) records available for analysis. Unnecessary tests for bleeding risk were defined as: PT tests done on patients with no history of abnormal bleeding, warfarin therapy, vitamin K-dependent clotting factor deficiency, or liver disease; or aPTT tests done on patients with no history of heparin treatment, hemophilia, lupus anticoagulant antibodies, or von Willebrand disease. We assessed the proportion of patients who received PT or aPTT tests who lacked evidence-based reasons for testing.ConclusionsThis study sought to bring the availability of big data together with applied comparative effectiveness research. Among preoperative patients, 26.2% received PT tests, and 94.3% of tests were unnecessary, given the absence of findings on H&P. Similarly, 23.3% of preoperative patients received aPTT tests, of which 99.9% were unnecessary. Among patients with no H&P findings suggestive of bleeding risk, 6.6% of PT tests and 7.1% of aPTT tests were either a false positive or a true positive (i.e. indicative of a previously-undiagnosed potential bleeding risk). Both PT and aPTT, designed as diagnostic tests, are apparently used as screening tests. Use of unnecessary screening tests raises concerns for the costs of such testing and the consequences of false positive results.

Dataset Information

Anticoagulation in syncardia total artificial heart recipients: anti-factor Xa or activated partial thromboplastin time?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets