Search

Critically ill COVID-19 patients present an inflammatory and procoagulant status with a high rate of relevant macro- and microvascular thrombosis. Furthermore, high rates of heparin resistance have been described; yet, individualized anticoagulation by drug monitoring has not been sufficiently researched. We analyzed data from critically ill COVID-19 patients treated at Innsbruck Medical University Hospital with routinely adapted low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) doses according to anti-Xa peak levels, and regularly performed ClotPro analyses (a viscoelastic hemostatic whole blood test). A total of 509 anti-Xa peak measurements in 91 patients were categorized as below (<0.008 IU/mL/mg), within (0.008–0–012 IU/mL/mg) or above (> 0.012 IU/mL/mg) expected ranges with respect to the administered LMWH doses. Besides intergroup comparisons, correlations between anti-Xa levels and ClotPro clotting times (CTs) were performed (226 time points in 84 patients). Anti-Xa peak levels remained below the expected range in the majority of performed measurements (63.7%). Corresponding patients presented with higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer but lower antithrombin levels when compared with patients achieving or exceeding the expected range. Consequently, higher enoxaparin doses were applied in the sub-expected anti-Xa range group. Importantly, 47 (51.6%) patients switched between groups during their intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Anti-Xa levels correlated weakly with IN test CT and moderately with Russell's viper venom (RVV) test CT. Critically ill COVID-19 patients present with a high rate of LMWH resistance but with a variable LMWH response during their ICU stay. Therefore, LMWH–anti-Xa monitoring seems inevitable to achieve adequate target ranges. Furthermore, we propose the use of ClotPro's RVV test to assess the coagulation status during LMWH administration, as it correlates well with anti-Xa levels but more holistically reflects the coagulation cascade than anti-Xa activity alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fibrinogen supplementation is recommended for treatment of severe trauma hemorrhage. However, required dosages and aimed for post-treatment fibrinogen levels remain a matter of discussion. Within the published RETIC study, adult patients suffering trauma-induced coagulopathy were randomly assigned to receive fibrinogen concentrate (FC) as first-line (n = 50) or crossover rescue (n = 20) therapy. Depending on bodyweight, a single dose of 3, 4, 5, or 6 g FC was administered and repeated if necessary (FibA10 < 9 mm). The dose-dependent response (changes in plasma fibrinogen and FibA10) was analyzed. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis regarding the need for massive transfusion and correlation analyses regarding fibrinogen concentrations and polymerization were performed. Median FC single doses amounted to 62.5 (57 to 66.66) mg·kg−1. One FC single-dose sufficiently corrected fibrinogen and FibA10 (median fibrinogen 213 mg·dL−1, median FibA10 11 mm) only in patients with baseline fibrinogen above 100 mg·dL−1 and FibA10 above 5 mm, repeated dosing was required in patients with lower baseline fibrinogen/FibA10. Fibrinogen increased by 83 or 107 mg·dL−1 and FibA10 by 4 or 4.5 mm after single or double dose of FC, respectively. ROC curve analysis revealed post-treatment fibrinogen levels under 204.5 mg·dL−1 to predict the need for massive transfusion (AUC 0.652; specificity: 0.667; sensitivity: 0.688). Baseline fibrinogen/FibA10 levels should be considered for FC dosing as only sufficiently corrected post-treatment levels limit transfusion requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study aims to evaluate whether prophylactic anticoagulation using argatroban or an increased dose of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is effective in achieving the targeted activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) of more than 45 s in critically ill heparin-resistant (HR) patients. Patients were randomized either to continue receiving an increased dose of UFH, or to be treated with argatroban. The endpoints were defined as achieving an aPTT target of more than 45 s at 7 h and 24 h. This clinical trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01734252) and on EudraCT (2012-000487-23). A total of 42 patients, 20 patients in the heparin and 22 in the argatroban group, were included. Of the patients with continued heparin treatment 55% achieved the target aPTT at 7 h, while only 40% of this group maintained the target aPTT after 24 h. Of the argatroban group 59% reached the target aPTT at 7 h, while at 24 h 86% of these patients maintained the targeted aPTT. Treatment success at 7 h did not differ between the groups (p = 0.1000), whereas at 24 h argatroban showed significantly greater efficacy (p = 0.0021) than did heparin. Argatroban also worked better in maintaining adequate anticoagulation in the further course of the study. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of bleeding or thromboembolic complications between the treatment groups. In the case of heparin-resistant critically ill patients, argatroban showed greater efficacy than did an increased dose of heparin in achieving adequate anticoagulation at 24 h and in maintaining the targeted aPTT goal throughout the treatment phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]