Unfractionated Heparins, Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins, and Indirect Factor Xa Inhibitors in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: An Evidence-Based Review.

SUMMARY: Venous thromboembolism can present with devastating complications and sequalae, particularly in the surgical patient. Current data supports prophylactic anticoagulant use in the high-risk inpatient, defined as those with a 2005 Caprini Risk Assessment Model score of ≥7. The most utilized chemoprophylaxis agents include unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins, and indirect factor Xa inhibitors. The authors review their mechanisms of action, metabolism, reversal agents, indications, contraindications, advantages, and disadvantages in plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Microvascular Surgery Patients Using Weight-Based Unfractionated Heparin Infusions.

BACKGROUND: Unfractionated heparin infusions are commonly used in microvascular surgery to prevent microvascular thrombosis. Previously, fixed-dose heparin infusions were believed to provide sufficient venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis; however, we now know that this practice is inadequate for the majority of patients. Anti-factor Xa (aFXa) level is a measure of unfractionated heparin efficacy and safety. This study evaluated the pharmacodynamics of weight-based dose heparin infusions and the impacts of real-time aFXa-guided heparin dose adjustments. METHODS: This prospective clinical trial enrolled adult microvascular surgery patients who received a weight-based heparin dose following a microsurgical procedure. Steady-state aFXa levels were monitored, and patients with out-of-range levels received dose adjustments. The study outcomes assessed were aFXa levels at a dose of heparin 10 units/kg/hour, time to adequate aFXa level, number of dose adjustments required to reach in-range aFXa levels, and clinically relevant bleeding and VTE at 90 days. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were prospectively recruited, and usable data were available for twenty patients. Four of twenty patients (20%) had adequate prophylaxis at a heparin dose of 10 units/kg/hour. Among patients who received dose adjustments and achieved in-range aFXa levels, the median number of dose adjustments was 2 and the median weight-based dose was 11 units/kg/hour. The percentage of patients with in-range levels was significantly increased (65 vs. 15%, p = 0.0002) as a result of real-time dose adjustments. The rate of VTE at 90 days was 0%, and clinically relevant bleeding rate at 90 days was 15%. CONCLUSION: Weight-based heparin infusions at a rate of 10 units/kg/hour provide a detectable level of anticoagulation for some patients following microsurgical procedures, but most patients require dose adjustment to ensure adequate VTE prophylaxis.

Low Anti-Factor Xa Level Predicts 90-Day Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Patients Receiving Enoxaparin Prophylaxis: A Pooled Analysis of Eight Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between enoxaparin dose adequacy, quantified with anti-Factor Xa (aFXa) levels, and 90-day symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and postoperative bleeding. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical patients often develop "breakthrough" VTE events-those which occur despite receiving chemical anticoagulation. We hypothesize that surgical patients with low aFXa levels will be more likely to develop 90-day VTE, and those with high aFXa will be more likely to bleed. METHODS: Pooled analysis of eight clinical trials (N = 985) from a single institution over a 4 year period. Patients had peak steady state aFXa levels in response to a known initial enoxaparin dose, and were followed for 90 days. Survival analysis log-rank test examined associations between aFXa level category and 90-day symptomatic VTE and bleeding. RESULTS: Among 985 patients, 2.3% (n = 23) had symptomatic 90-day VTE, 4.2% (n = 41) had 90-day clinically relevant bleeding, and 2.1% (n = 21) had major bleeding. Patients with initial low aFXa were significantly more likely to have 90-day VTE than patients with adequate or high aFXa (4.2% vs 1.3%, P = 0.007). In a stratified analysis, this relationship was significant for patients who received twice daily (6.2% vs 1.5%, P = 0.003), but not once daily (3.0% vs 0.7%, P = 0.10) enoxaparin. No association was seen between high aFXa and 90-day clinically relevant bleeding (4.8% vs 2.9%, P = 0.34) or major bleeding (3.6% vs 1.6%, P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript establishes inadequate enoxaparin dosing as a plausible mechanism for breakthrough VTE in surgical patients, and identifies anticoagulant dose adequacy as a novel target for process improvement measures.

Optimal Dosing of Prophylactic Enoxaparin after Surgical Procedures: Results of the Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled FIxed or Variable Enoxaparin (FIVE) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The accepted "one-size-fits-all" dose strategy for prophylactic enoxaparin may not optimize the medication's risks and benefits after surgical procedures. The authors hypothesized that weight-based administration might improve the pharmacokinetics of prophylactic enoxaparin when compared to fixed-dose administration. METHODS: The FIxed or Variable Enoxaparin (FIVE) trial was a randomized, double-blind trial that compared the pharmacokinetic and clinical outcomes of patients assigned randomly to postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis using enoxaparin 40 mg twice daily or enoxaparin 0.5 mg/kg twice daily. Patients were randomized after surgery and received the first enoxaparin dose at 8 hours after surgery. Primary hypotheses were (1) weight-based administration is noninferior to a fixed dose for avoiding underanticoagulation (anti-factor Xa <0.2 IU/ml) and (2) weight-based administration is superior to fixed-dose administration for avoiding overanticoagulation (anti-factor Xa >0.4 IU/ml). Secondary endpoints were 90-day venous thromboembolism and bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 295 patients were randomized, with 151 assigned to fixed-dose and 144 to weight-based administration of enoxaparin. For avoidance of under anticoagulation, weight-based administration had a greater effectiveness (79.9 percent versus 76.6 percent); the 3.3 percent (95 percent CI, -7.5 to 12.5 percent) greater effectiveness achieved statistically significant noninferiority relative to the a priori specified -12 percent noninferiority margin (p = 0.004). For avoidance of overanticoagulation, weight-based enoxaparin administration was superior to fixed-dose administration (90.6 percent versus 82.2 percent); the 8.4 percent (95 percent CI, 0.1 to 16.6 percent) greater effectiveness showed significant safety superiority (p = 0.046). Ninety-day venous thromboembolism and major bleeding were not different between fixed-dose and weight-based cohorts (0.66 percent versus 0.69 percent, p = 0.98; 3.3 percent versus 4.2 percent, p = 0.72, respectively). CONCLUSION: Weight-based administration showed superior pharmacokinetics for avoidance of underanticoagulation and overanticoagulation in postoperative patients receiving prophylactic enoxaparin. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.

Fixed or Weight-Tiered Enoxaparin After Thoracic Surgery for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is an important patient safety issue in thoracic surgery patients. The optimal enoxaparin dose remains unclear. This multicenter pre/post clinical trial compared the pharmacokinetics of fixed versus weight-tiered enoxaparin, and their impact on 90-day venous thromboembolism and bleeding. METHODS: Thoracic surgery patients were prospectively enrolled using a pre/post study design. Cohort 1 received enoxaparin 40 mg daily, and cohort 2 received a weight-tiered regimen: less than 70 kg received 30 mg daily; 70 kg to 89.9 kg received 40 mg once daily; and 90 kg or more received 50 mg daily. The primary study outcome was peak anti-factor Xa levels in response to fixed or weight-tiered enoxaparin. Secondary outcomes included trough anti-factor Xa, 90-day symptomatic venous thromboembolism, and 90-day clinically relevant bleeding. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one patients were prospectively enrolled, including 65 in the fixed-dose cohort and 66 in the weight-tiered cohort. No patient was lost to follow-up. Weight-tiered enoxaparin was not significantly more likely to produce adequate anticoagulation (peak anti-factor Xa 0.3 IU/mL or greater) when compared with fixed-dose enoxaparin (44.3% vs 48.2%, P = .67). Weight-tiered enoxaparin was not more likely to avoid over-anticoagulation (peak anti-factor Xa 0.5 IU/mL or greater) when compared with fixed-dose enoxaparin (3.3% vs 3.6%, P = 1.00). The groups had no significant difference in trough anti-factor Xa. Observed rates of 90-day symptomatic venous thromboembolism and clinically relevant bleeding were low (0% and 3.1%, respectively) and were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter pre/post clinical trial did not show a pharmacokinetic advantage to weight-tiered enoxaparin, when compared with fixed-dose enoxaparin, in thoracic surgery patients. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03251963.).

Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial to Examine the Pharmacokinetic and Clinical Impacts of Fixed Dose versus Weight-based Enoxaparin Prophylaxis: A Methodologic Description of the FIxed or Variable Enoxaparin (FIVE) Trial.

Venous thromboembolism is an important patient safety in plastic surgery, and multiple clinical trials in the past 10 years have provided increased understanding of the risks and benefits of venous thromboembolism prevention strategies. This paper provides an exhaustive discussion of the rationale behind and methodology for an in progress randomized double-blind clinical trial in plastic surgery inpatients, in which the 2 study arms are enoxaparin 40 mg twice daily and enoxaparin 0.5 mg/kg twice daily. The trial's primary aims are to: (1) demonstrate whether enoxaparin 0.5 mg/kg twice daily is superior to enoxaparin 40 mg twice daily for the pharmacokinetic endpoint of overanticoagulation (anti-Factor Xa > 0.4 IU/mL) and (2) demonstrate whether enoxaparin 0.5 mg/kg twice daily is not inferior to enoxaparin 40 mg twice daily for the pharmacokinetic endpoint of underanticoagulation (anti-Factor Xa < 0.2 IU/mL). The results of this trial will provide Level I evidence to help guide plastic surgeon's choice of postoperative prophylactic anticoagulation.

Assessment of Anti-Factor Xa Levels of Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery Given Once-Daily Enoxaparin Prophylaxis: A Clinical Study Examining Enoxaparin Pharmacokinetics.

Importance: Between 4% and 12% of patients undergoing colorectal surgery and receiving enoxaparin, 40 mg per day, have a postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) event. An improved understanding of why "breakthrough" VTE events occur despite guideline-compliant prophylaxis is an important patient safety question. Objective: To determine the proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery who received adequate anticoagulation based on peak anti-factor Xa (aFXa) levels while receiving enoxaparin at 40 mg per day. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial was conducted between February 2017 and July 2018 with 90-day follow-up at a quaternary academic medical center in the Intermountain West and included patients undergoing colorectal surgery who had surgery after receiving general anesthesia, were admitted for at least 3 days, and received enoxaparin, 40 mg once daily. Interventions: All patients had aFXa levels measured after receiving enoxaparin 40 mg per day. Patients whose aFXa level was out of range entered the trial's interventional arm where real-time enoxaparin dose adjustment and repeated aFXa measurement were performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome: in-range peak aFXa levels (goal range, 0.3-0.5 IU/mL) with enoxaparin, 40 mg per day. Secondary outcomes: (1) in-range trough aFXa levels (goal range, 0.1-0.2 IU/mL) and (2) the proportion of patients with in-range peak aFXa levels from enoxaparin, 40 mg once daily, vs the real-time enoxaparin dose adjustment protocol. Results: Over 16 months, 116 patients undergoing colorectal surgery (65 women [56.0%]; 99 white individuals [85.3%], 13 Hispanic or Latino individuals [11.2%], and 4 Pacific Islander individuals [3.5%]; mean [range] age, 52.1 [18-85] years) were enrolled. Among 106 patients (91.4%) whose peak aFXa level was appropriately drawn, 72 (67.9%) received inadequate anticoagulation (aFXa < 0.3 IU/mL) with enoxaparin, 40 mg per day. Weight and peak aFXa levels were inversely correlated (r2 = 0.38). Forty-seven patients (77%) had a trough aFXa level that was not detectable (ie, most patients had no detectable level of anticoagulation for at least 12 hours per day). Real-time enoxaparin dose adjustment was effective. Patients were significantly more likely to achieve an in-range peak aFXa with real-time dose adjustment as opposed to fixed dosing alone (85.4% vs 29.2%, P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study supports the finding that most patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive inadequate prophylaxis from enoxaparin, 40 mg once daily. These findings may explain the high rate of "breakthrough" VTE observed in many clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02704052.

Adequacy of Fixed-Dose Heparin Infusions for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention after Microsurgical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: In microvascular surgery, patients often receive unfractionated heparin infusions to minimize risk for microvascular thrombosis. Patients who receive intravenous (IV) heparin are believed to have adequate prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether a fixed dose of IV heparin provides detectable levels of anticoagulation, or whether the "one size fits all" approach provides adequate prophylaxis against VTE remains unknown. This study examined the pharmacodynamics of fixed-dose heparin infusions and the effects of real-time, anti-factor Xa (aFXa) level driven heparin dose adjustments. METHODS: This prospective clinical trial recruited adult microvascular surgery patients placed on a fixed-dose (500 units/h) unfractionated heparin infusion during their initial microsurgical procedure. Steady-state aFXa levels, a marker of unfractionated heparin efficacy and safety, were monitored. Patients with out-of-range aFXa levels received protocol-driven real-time dose adjustments. Outcomes of interest included aFXa levels in response to heparin 500 units/h, number of dose adjustments required to achieve goal aFXa levels, time to reach goal aFXa level, and 90-day clinically relevant bleeding and VTE. RESULTS: Twenty patients were recruited prospectively. None of 20 patients had any detectable level of anticoagulation in response to heparin infusions at 500 units/h. The median number of dose adjustments required to reach goal level was five, and median weight-based dose to reach goal level was 11.8 units/kg/h. Real-time dose adjustments significantly increased the proportion of patients with in-range levels (60 vs. 0%, p = 0.0001). The 90-day VTE rate was 5% and 90-day clinically relevant bleeding rate was 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-dose heparin infusions at a rate of 500 units/h do not provide a detectable level of anticoagulation after microsurgical procedures and are insufficient for the majority of patients who require VTE prophylaxis. Weight-based heparin infusions at 10 to 12 units/kg/h deserve future study in patients undergoing microsurgical procedures to increase the proportion of patients receiving adequate VTE prophylaxis.