Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, UPMC Presbyterian-Shadyside Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Am J Hematol. 2019 Sep;94(9):1015-1019. doi: 10.1002/ajh.25565. Epub 2019 Jul 16.
Anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) monitoring of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is associated with less time to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation compared to the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). However, it is unknown whether clinical outcomes differ between these methods of monitoring. The aim of this research was to compare the rate of venous thrombosis and bleeding events in patients that received UFH monitored by anti-Xa compared to the aPTT. A retrospective review of electronic health records identified adult patients that received UFH given intravenously (IV) for ≥2 days, with either anti-Xa or aPTT monitoring at an academic tertiary care hospital. This was a pre/post study design conducted between January 1 to December 30, 2014 (aPTT), and January 1 to December 30, 2016 (anti-Xa). All UFH adjustments were based on institutional nomograms. The primary outcome was venous thrombosis and the secondary outcome was bleeding, both of which occurred between UFH administration and discharge from the index hospitalization. A total of 2500 patients were in the anti-Xa group and 2847 patients aPTT group. Venous thrombosis occurred in 10.2% vs 10.8% of patients in the anti-Xa and aPTT groups, respectively (P = .49). Bleeding occurred in 33.7% vs 33.6% of patients in the anti-Xa and aPTT groups, respectively (P = .94). Anti-Xa monitoring was not an independent predictor of either outcome in multivariate logistic regression analyses. Our study found no difference in clinical outcomes between anti-Xa and aPTT-based monitoring of UFH IV.
未分级肝素(UFH)的抗因子 Xa(anti-Xa)监测与活化部分凝血活酶时间(aPTT)相比,可使达到治疗性抗凝的时间更短。然而,这两种监测方法的临床结局是否存在差异尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较接受 UFH 治疗的患者中,anti-Xa 监测与 aPTT 监测时静脉血栓形成和出血事件的发生率。一项回顾性电子病历研究纳入了在学术性三级护理医院接受 UFH 静脉(IV)给药≥2 天的成年患者,这些患者接受了 anti-Xa 或 aPTT 监测。这是一项在 2014 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 30 日(aPTT)和 2016 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 30 日(anti-Xa)之间进行的前后研究设计。所有 UFH 调整均基于机构列线图。主要结局是静脉血栓形成,次要结局是出血,两者均发生在 UFH 给药和索引住院期间出院之间。共有 2500 例患者在 anti-Xa 组,2847 例患者在 aPTT 组。anti-Xa 组和 aPTT 组的静脉血栓形成发生率分别为 10.2%和 10.8%(P =.49)。anti-Xa 组和 aPTT 组的出血发生率分别为 33.7%和 33.6%(P =.94)。多变量逻辑回归分析显示,anti-Xa 监测不是这两种结局的独立预测因素。我们的研究发现,UFH IV 的 anti-Xa 与 aPTT 监测在临床结局方面无差异。