Use of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Peak anti-Xa Monitoring In Severe SARS-CoV-2 Disease: A Brief Report.

In 2019, a novel coronavirus was identified in Wuhan, China. This strain was classified as a pandemic in early 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO), rapidly reaching millions of cases worldwide and overwhelming intensive care units. One distinct feature identified in severe SARS-CoV-2 is abnormal and complex coagulation and hematologic abnormalities, including significantly elevated D-dimer and fibrin/fibrinogen values possibly increasing morbidity and mortality in this patient population. Aggressive anticoagulation therapy with appropriate peak anti-Xa level monitoring has produce satisfactory results at our institution. Our intent is to present a case series of our strategy to highlight the benefits of this approach.

Effects of dalteparin on anti-Xa activities cannot be predicted in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients are at high risk of thromboembolic events despite routine-dosed low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis. However, in recent randomized trials increased-intensity thromboprophylaxis seemed futile and possibly even harmful. In this explorative pharmacokinetic (PK) study we measured anti-Xa activities on frequent timepoints in 15 critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving dalteparin and performed PK analysis by nonlinear mixed-effect modelling. A linear one-compartment model with first-order kinetics provided a good fit. However, wide interindividual variation in dalteparin absorption (variance 78%) and clearance (variance 34%) was observed, unexplained by routine clinical covariates. Using the final PK model for Monte Carlo simulations, we predicted increased-intensity dalteparin to result in anti-Xa activities well over prophylactic targets (0.2-0.4 IU/mL) in the majority of patients. Therapeutic-intensity dalteparin results in supratherapeutic anti-Xa levels (target 0.6-1.0 IU/mL) in 19% of patients and subtherapeutic levels in 22%. Therefore, anti-Xa measurements should guide high-intensity dalteparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Utilization of apixaban anti-Xa levels in transition from apixaban to warfarin in a patient with chronic renal dysfunction.

PURPOSE: The effect of apixaban on anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) assays and international normalized ratio (INR) complicates transitions between anticoagulant agents. When switching from apixaban to warfarin, the recommendation is to begin both a parenteral anticoagulant and warfarin at the time of the next apixaban dose and to discontinue the parenteral agent when the INR is in an acceptable range. This proves challenging in renal dysfunction, as continued presence of apixaban contributes to both a prolonged effect on the INR and continued therapeutic levels of anticoagulation. SUMMARY: This case describes the transition of apixaban to warfarin in a patient with acute on chronic kidney disease and recent deep vein thrombosis, utilizing chromogenic apixaban anti-Xa assays to assess the level of anticoagulation and avoid unnecessary parenteral anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Utilization of apixaban anti-Xa levels aided in the transition from apixaban to warfarin in a patient with chronic renal failure and avoided need for parenteral bridging therapy.

What Do We Know about Thromboprophylaxis and Its Monitoring in Critically Ill Patients?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is an important complication in patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICU). Thromboprophylaxis is mainly performed with Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) and, in some specific patients, with Unfractionated Heparin (UFH). These intensive units are an environment where individual patient variability is extreme and where traditional antithrombotic protocols are frequently ineffective. This was known for a long time, but the hospitalization of many patients with COVID-19 inflammatory storms suddenly highlighted this knowledge. It is therefore reasonable to propose variable antithrombotic prevention protocols based initially on a series of individual criteria (weight, BMI, and thrombotic risks). Secondly, they should be adjusted by the monitoring of anticoagulant activity, preferably by measuring the anti-Xa activity. However, we still face unresolved questions, such as once- or twice-daily LMWH injections, monitoring at the peak and/or trough, and poorly defined therapeutic targets. Equally surprisingly, we observed a lack of standardization of the anti-Xa activity kits.

Utilization of anti-factor Xa levels to guide reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: Oral factor Xa inhibitors (FXaIs) are increasingly utilized for outpatient anticoagulation therapy; however, laboratory monitoring is not routinely used to assess the safety and efficacy of these agents. We aimed to evaluate the role of chromogenic anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) assays in the emergency department (ED) in the setting of patients with an acute bleed or requiring emergent procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review of anti-Xa levels obtained in the ED between June 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020, was completed. Data were collected to describe the clinical setting of anti-Xa level collection, oral FXaIs used before admission, administration of reversal agents, and patient disposition to further characterize the role of anti-Xa levels in the management of rivaroxaban and apixaban reversal. RESULTS: Thirty anti-Xa levels were included in the final analysis. The median time from sample collection to anti-Xa assay result was 45.9 minutes (interquartile range, 35.3-54.7 minutes). Eleven patients (37%) received anticoagulation reversal after their anti-Xa levels were determined. Anticoagulation reversal agents included either activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCCs) or prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs). Anti-Xa levels were collected in 2 patients who had received PCCs before arrival at our ED. Of the patients with anti-Xa levels below 30 ng/mL, none received aPCCs or PCCs after their anti-Xa levels were determined. Anti-Xa assays were used to rule out the presence of FXaIs in 3 patients. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the novel role of anti-Xa levels in managing patients with an emergent need for reversal in the ED. The assay may be used to rule out the presence of oral FXaIs and avoid unnecessary administrations of anticoagulation reversal agents.

Heparin dosage, level, and resistance in SARS-CoV2 infected patients in intensive care unit.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with COVID-19 frequently exhibit a hypercoagulable state with high thrombotic risk, particularly those admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Thromboprophylaxis is mandatory in these patients; nevertheless, thrombosis still occurs in many cases. Thus, the problem of assessing an adequate level of anticoagulation in ICU patients becomes evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the heparin resistance and the efficacy of heparin monitoring using an anti-Xa activity assay. METHODS: Thirty-seven heparin-treated patients admitted to ICU for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were retrospectively studied for antifactor Xa activity (anti-Xa), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), Antithrombin, Fibrinogen, D-Dimer, Factor VIII, von Willebrand Factor, and the total daily amount of heparin administered. The correlation between APTT and anti-Xa was evaluated for unfractionated heparins (UFH). The correlations between the daily dose of UFH or the dosage expressed as IU/kg b.w. for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and anti-Xa were also evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received calcium heparin, 8 sodium heparin, and 8 LMWH. A moderate correlation was found between APTT and anti-Xa for UFH. APTT did not correlate with coagulation parameters. 62% of UFH and 75% of LMWH treated patients were under the therapeutic range. About 75% of patients could be considered resistant to heparin. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-COV2 pneumonia patients in ICU have frequently heparin resistance. Anti-Xa seems a more reliable method to monitor heparin treatment than APTT in acute patients, also because the assay is insensitive to the increased levels of fibrinogen, FVIII, and LAC that are common during the COVID-19 inflammatory state.

Monitoring of Unfractionated Heparin in Severe COVID-19: An Observational Study of Patients on CRRT and ECMO.

Objective Severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can require continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Unfractionated heparin (UFH) to prevent circuit clotting is mandatory but monitoring is complicated by (pseudo)-heparin resistance. In this observational study, we compared two different activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) assays and a chromogenic anti-Xa assay in COVID-19 patients on CRRT or ECMO in relation to their UFH dosages and acute phase reactants. Materials and Methods The aPTT (optical [aPTT-CS] and/or mechanical [aPTT-STA] clot detection methods were used), anti-Xa, factor VIII (FVIII), antithrombin III (ATIII), and fibrinogen were measured in 342 samples from 7 COVID-19 patients on CRRT or ECMO during their UFH treatment. Dosage of UFH was primarily based on the aPTT-CS with a heparin therapeutic range (HTR) of 50-80s. Associations between different variables were made using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis. Results Dosage of UFH was above 35,000IU/24 hours in all patients. aPTT-CS and aPTT-STA were predominantly within the HTR. Anti-Xa was predominantly above the HTR (0.3-0.7 IU/mL) and ATIII concentration was >70% for all patients; mean FVIII and fibrinogen were 606% and 7.5 g/L, respectively. aPTT-CS correlated with aPTT-STA ( r 2 = 0.68) with a bias of 39.3%. Correlation between aPTT and anti-Xa was better for aPTT-CS (0.78 ≤ r 2 ≤ 0.94) than for aPTT-STA (0.34 ≤ r 2 ≤ 0.81). There was no general correlation between the aPTT-CS and ATIII, FVIII, fibrinogen, thrombocytes, C-reactive protein, or ferritin. Conclusion All included COVID-19 patients on CRRT or ECMO conformed to the definition of heparin resistance. A patient-specific association was found between aPTT and anti-Xa. This association could not be explained by FVIII or fibrinogen.

Anti Xa activity after high dose LMWH thrombosis prophylaxis in covid 19 patients at the intensive care unit.

INTRODUCTION: Coagulopathy in Coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) has been demonstrated by an increase in D-dimer, prothrombin time (PT), fibrinogen and factor VIII. Venous thromboembolic events are a common abnormality in patients with covid-19. We evaluate the results of intensive care unit (ICU) thrombosis prophylaxis of 5700 international unit (IU) nadroparin low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) twice daily. METHODS: After introduction of this high-dose pharmacological thrombosis prophylaxis twice weekly anti-factor Xa (anti Xa) concentrations and results from routine laboratory and viscoelastic hemostatic tests in 16 ICU covid-19 patients were evaluated. RESULTS: During one week, median peak anti Xa activities were 0.38 [0.16-0.45] and 0.38 [0.20-0.58] at time point 1 and 2 respectively. Laboratory coagulation tests showed PT, AT and platelet count (PltC) values within normal range and markedly increased D-dimer and fibrinogen levels. Viscoelastic tests showed a maximum clot strength just above normal reference value, while fibrin clot strength was strongly increased. The overall contribution of fibrin to clot strength was high with 71 [56-85]%. CONCLUSION: Anti Xa activity was within the target range of pharmacodynamic endpoint for covid-19 patients but viscoelastic tests still demonstrated a procoagulant pattern.