-
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Jan 2024This systematic review addresses the crucial role of anticoagulation in microsurgical procedures, focusing on free flap reconstruction and replantation surgeries. The... (Review)
Review
This systematic review addresses the crucial role of anticoagulation in microsurgical procedures, focusing on free flap reconstruction and replantation surgeries. The objective was to balance the prevention of thrombotic complications commonly leading to flap failure, with the risk of increased bleeding complications associated with anticoagulant use. A meticulous PubMed literature search following Evidence-Based-Practice principles yielded 79 relevant articles, including both clinical and animal studies. The full-texts were carefully reviewed and evaluated by the modified Coleman methodology score. Clinical studies revealed diverse perioperative regimens, primarily based on aspirin, heparin, and dextran. Meta-analyses demonstrated similar flap loss rates with heparin or aspirin. High doses of dalteparin or heparin, however, correlated with higher flap loss rates than low dose administration. Use of dextran is not recommended due to severe systemic complications. In animal studies, systemic heparin administration showed predominantly favorable results, while topical application and intraluminal irrigation consistently exhibited significant benefits in flap survival. The insights from this conducted systematic review serve as a foundational pillar towards the establishment of evidence-based guidelines for anticoagulation in microsurgery. An average Coleman score of 55 (maximum 103), indicating low overall study quality, however, emphasizes the need for large multi-institutional, randomized-clinical trials as the next vital step.
PubMed: 38255697
DOI: 10.3390/life14010082 -
TH Open : Companion Journal To... Jan 2023Thrombocytopenia is common among critically ill sepsis patients, while they also hold an increased risk for thromboembolic events. Thus, the choice of anticoagulant...
Thrombocytopenia is common among critically ill sepsis patients, while they also hold an increased risk for thromboembolic events. Thus, the choice of anticoagulant prophylaxis for this patient population is challenging. We investigated the effect of low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin) and direct thrombin inhibitor (argatroban) on the hemostasis in blood from sepsis patients with new-onset thrombocytopenia. Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count drop of ≥30% and/or from >100 × 10 /L to 30 to 100 × 10 /L within 24 hours prior to inclusion. We included five healthy individuals and ten patients. Analyses of thrombin generation (Calibrated Automated Thrombogram), thrombin-antithrombin (TAT) complex levels, prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2), and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) were performed. Based on dose-response relationships investigated in healthy blood, patient samples were spiked with prophylactic (0.25 IU/mL) and therapeutic (0.75 IU/mL) dalteparin and low (0.25 µg/mL) and high (0.50 µg/mL) argatroban concentrations, each with a sample without anticoagulant. In patients, the endogenous thrombin potential was markedly lower in therapeutic dalteparin samples than in samples without anticoagulant [median (range): 29 (0-388) vs. 795 (98-2121) nM × min]. In high argatroban concentration samples, thrombin lag time was longer than in samples without anticoagulant [median (range): 15.5 (10.5-20.2) versus 5.3 (2.8-7.3) min]. Dalteparin and argatroban both increased clotting time but did not affect maximum clot firmness in the ROTEM INTEM assay. Six patients had elevated TAT and eight patients had elevated F1 + 2. In conclusion, dalteparin mainly affected the amount of thrombin generated and argatroban delayed clot initiation in critically ill sepsis patients with new-onset thrombocytopenia. Neither anticoagulant affected clot strength.
PubMed: 36751302
DOI: 10.1055/a-2000-6576 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 34878173
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006649.pub8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anticoagulants; Catheterization, Peripheral; Dalteparin; Diclofenac; Drug Combinations; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Escin; Gels; Heparin; Heparinoids; Humans; Ibuprofen; Nitroglycerin; Pentosan Sulfuric Polyester; Phospholipids; Polydeoxyribonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombophlebitis; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 26588711
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011015.pub2 -
European Journal of Clinical... Aug 2015Although therapeutic dosages of most low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are known to accumulate in patients with renal insufficiency, for the lower prophylactic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Although therapeutic dosages of most low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are known to accumulate in patients with renal insufficiency, for the lower prophylactic dosages this has not been clearly proven. Nevertheless, dose reduction is often recommended. We conducted a systematic review to investigate whether prophylactic dosages of LMWH accumulate in renal insufficient patients.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted on 17 February 2015 using Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed publisher, and Google scholar. The syntax emphasized for LMWHs, impaired renal function, and pharmacokinetics. The search yielded 674 publications. After exclusion by reading the titles, abstracts, and if necessary the full paper, 11 publications remained.
RESULTS
For dalteparin and tinzaparin, no accumulation was observed. Enoxaparin, on the other hand, did lead to accumulation in patients with renal insufficiency, although not in patients undergoing renal replacement therapy. Bemiparin and certoparin also did show accumulation. No data were available for nadroparin.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we show that prophylactic dosages of tinzaparin and dalteparin are likely to be safe in patients with renal insufficiency and do not need dose reduction based on the absence of accumulation. However, prophylactic dosages of enoxaparin, bemiparin, and certoparin did show accumulation in patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCl) below 30 ml/min, and therefore, dose reduction is required. The differences in occurrence of accumulation seem to depend on the mean molecular weight of LMWHs.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Renal Insufficiency; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 26071276
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-015-1880-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
A comprehensive search included a major electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and a search for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 January 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 15440 identified citations, 7387 unique citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH enrolling 1025 participants, one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH enrolling 477 participants, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin enrolling 113 participants. The meta-analysis of mortality at three months included 418 participants from five studies and that of recurrent VTE included 422 participants from 3 studies. The findings showed that LMWH likely decreases mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence), but did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in VTE recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of fondaparinux on mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; moderate certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; moderate certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; moderate certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence)The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of dalteparin on mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Dalteparin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Fondaparinux; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Polysaccharides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Tinzaparin; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 29363105
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006649.pub7 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Feb 2023Even though low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), including dalteparin, has a critical role in portal vein thrombosis (PVT) treatment in liver cirrhosis (LC) patients,...
Even though low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), including dalteparin, has a critical role in portal vein thrombosis (PVT) treatment in liver cirrhosis (LC) patients, the predictive factors and the proper dose of dalteparin for PVT treatment and relapse have not yet been investigated. This retrospective study evaluated the records of LC patients receiving dalteparin from July 2013 to June 2019. The odds ratio (OR) and adjusted OR were calculated from univariate and multivariable analyses, respectively. Among data from 121 patients, the overall recanalization rate of all patients was 66.1% (80 patients). No history of variceal bleeding (OR 4.6, 95% CI: 1.88-11.43) and the case of newly developed thrombus before dalteparin treatment (OR 3.2, 95% CI: 1.24-8.08) were predictive factors associated with increased treatment response. Relapse of PVT occurred in 32 out of 80 patients (40%) who showed a recanalization. The risk of relapse was 3.1-3.9 times higher in those who took more than three months or more than six months from the diagnosis of PVT to dalteparin treatment compared to those who took less than these durations, respectively. In the dosing regimen, patients with the kg-based dosing regimen showed 2.6 times better response than those with the fixed dosing regimen. However, no difference in bleeding complications was observed. In the dosing regimen, the kg-based regimen that was the same as the venous thromboembolism regimen was a better option for the efficacy and safety of dalteparin therapy. Additionally, when treating PVT in LC patients, careful monitoring is recommended for patients with predictive factors for treatment response and relapse of PVT.
Topics: Humans; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Anticoagulants; Portal Vein; Dalteparin; Retrospective Studies; Liver Cirrhosis; Venous Thrombosis; Thrombosis; Recurrence
PubMed: 36837493
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59020292 -
The Journal of Thoracic and... Dec 2022The optimal duration of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing resection of primary lung cancer is not known. We investigated the incidence of pulmonary emboli and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The optimal duration of thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing resection of primary lung cancer is not known. We investigated the incidence of pulmonary emboli and venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing early-stage lung cancer resection and the impact of change from short duration to extended thromboprophylaxis.
METHODS
We reviewed the outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent resection of early-stage primary lung cancer following a change in protocol from inpatient-only to extended thromboprophylaxis to 28 days. Propensity-score matching of control (routine inpatient pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis) and treatment group (extended pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis) was performed. Adjustment for covariates based on the Caprini risk assessment model was undertaken. Thromboembolic outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS
Seven hundred fifty consecutive patients underwent resection of primary lung cancer at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust between January 2013 and December 2018. Six hundred patients were included for analysis and propensity-score matching resulted in 253 matched pairs. Extended prophylaxis was associated with a significant reduction in pulmonary emboli (10 of 253 patients [4%] vs 1 of 253 patients [0.4%], P = .01). One patient (0.4%) developed a bleeding complication within the treatment cohort. Multivariable logistic regression model demonstrated that extended thromboprophylaxis was independently associated with a reduction in postoperative pulmonary emboli.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients undergoing lung cancer resection surgery are at moderate-to-high risk of postoperative thromboembolic disease. Extended dalteparin for 28 days is safe and is associated with reduced incidence of pulmonary embolus in patients undergoing resection of early-stage primary lung cancer.
Topics: Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Anticoagulants; Drug Administration Schedule; Pulmonary Embolism; Postoperative Complications; Lung Neoplasms
PubMed: 35953309
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.06.016 -
The Canadian Journal of Hospital... 2015The choice of whether to monitor anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) activity in patients who are obese and who are receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) therapy is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The choice of whether to monitor anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) activity in patients who are obese and who are receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) therapy is controversial. To the authors' knowledge, no systematic review of monitoring of anti-Xa activity in such patients has been published to date.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically ascertain the utility of monitoring anti-Xa concentrations for LMWH therapy in obese patients.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE (1946 to September 2014), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase (1974 to September 2014), PubMed (1947 to September 2014), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to September 2014), and Scopus were searched using the terms obesity, morbid obesity, thrombosis, venous thrombosis, embolism, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, low-molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, dalteparin, tinzaparin, anti-factor Xa, anti-factor Xa monitoring, anti-factor Xa activity, and anti-factor Xa assay. The reference lists of retrieved articles were also reviewed.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
English-language studies describing obese patients treated with LMWH or reporting anti-Xa activity were reviewed using a 9-step decision-making algorithm to determine whether monitoring of LMWH therapy by means of anti-Xa activity in obesity is warranted. Studies published in abstract form were excluded.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The analysis showed that anti-Xa concentrations are not strongly associated with thrombosis or hemorrhage. In clinical studies of LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in bariatric surgery, orthopedic surgery, general surgery, and medical patients, and for treatment of venous thrombo embolism and acute coronary syndrome, anti-Xa activity can be predicted from dose of LMWH and total body weight; no difference in clinical outcome was found between obese and non-obese participants.
CONCLUSIONS
Routinely determining anti-Xa concentrations in obese patients to monitor the clinical effectiveness of LMWH is not warranted on the basis of the current evidence. Circumstances where measurement of anti-Xa concentration may help in clinical decision-making in either obese or non-obese patients would be cases where elimination of LMWH is impaired or there is an unexpected clinical response, as well as to confirm compliance with therapy or to identify deviation from predicted pharmacokinetics.
PubMed: 25762818
DOI: 10.4212/cjhp.v68i1.1423 -
Effects of dalteparin on anti-Xa activities cannot be predicted in critically ill COVID-19 patients.British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jun 2022Critically ill COVID-19 patients are at high risk of thromboembolic events despite routine-dosed low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis. However, in recent...
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.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Critical Illness; Dalteparin; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 34965610
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15208