Impact of Weight on Anti-Xa Attainment in High-Risk Trauma Patients on Enoxaparin Chemoprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Serum anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) concentration may guide low molecular weight heparin chemoprophylaxis in trauma patients. Higher total body weight (TBW) is a risk factor for subprophylactic anti-Xa and venous thromboembolism (VTE). The purpose of this study was to evaluate TBW differences in patients with subprophylactic versus prophylactic trough anti-Xa. METHODS: This retrospective study included adults admitted to the trauma service who received enoxaparin chemoprophylaxis, trough anti-Xa assessment, and screening duplex ultrasound. Initial enoxaparin dose was determined per trauma team weight-tiered protocol with subsequent 10 mg increase if anti-Xa was subprophylactic. Patients were stratified into subprophylactic (anti-Xa <0.1 IU/ml) and prophylactic (anti-Xa ≥0.1 IU/mL) groups. The primary outcome was difference in TBW. Secondary outcomes were weight-adjusted enoxaparin dose (mg/kg), VTE, red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions. RESULTS: A total of 887 patients were included with 681 (76.8%) having subprophylactic anti-Xa. The subprophylactic group had significantly younger age, higher proportion male sex, higher Injury Severity Score (ISS), higher BMI, and longer length of hospital stay. The subprophylactic group had higher TBW (median [IQR], 87.8 [74-102] kg vs. 78.9 [68-91.8] kg; P < 0.001) which equated to a lower weight-adjusted dose (0.34 [0.3-0.41] mg/kg vs. 0.38 (0.33-0.44) mg/kg; P < 0.001). There were no differences in VTE (10.4% vs. 9.2%; P = 0.71) or pRBC administration (17.0% vs. 16.0%; P = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: TBW is higher and weight-adjusted enoxaparin dose is lower in high-risk trauma patients with subprophylactic anti-Xa concentrations. These data suggest TBW should be considered when determining the optimal prophylactic enoxaparin dose in high-risk trauma patients.

Impact of antithrombin III and enoxaparin dosage adjustment on prophylactic anti-Xa concentrations in trauma patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism: a randomized pilot trial.

The impact of antithrombin III activity (AT-III) on prophylactic enoxaparin anti-factor Xa concentration (anti-Xa) is unknown in high-risk trauma patients. So too is the optimal anti-Xa-adjusted enoxaparin dosage. This prospective, randomized, pilot study sought to explore the association between AT-III and anti-Xa goal attainment and to preliminarily evaluate two enoxaparin dosage adjustment strategies in patients with subprophylactic anti-Xa. Adult trauma patients with Risk Assessment Profile (RAP) ≥ 5 prescribed enoxaparin 30 mg subcutaneously every 12 h were eligible. AT-III and anti-Xa were drawn 8 h after the third enoxaparin dose and compared between patients with anti-Xa ≥ 0.1 IU/mL (goal; control group) or anti-Xa < 0.1 IU/mL (subprophylactic; intervention group). The primary outcome was difference in baseline AT-III. Subsequently, intervention group patients underwent 1:1 randomization to either enoxaparin 40 mg every 12 h (up to 50 mg every 12 h if repeat anti-Xa < 0.1 IU/mL) (enox12) or enoxaparin 30 mg every 8 h (enox8) with repeat anti-Xa assessments. The proportion of patients achieving goal anti-Xa after dosage adjustment were compared. A total of 103 patients were included. Anti-Xa was subprophylactic in 50.5%. Baseline AT-III (median [IQR]) was 87% [80-98%] in control patients versus 82% [71-96%] in intervention patients (p = 0.092). Goal trough anti-Xa was achieved on first assessment in 38.1% enox12 versus 50% enox8 patients (p = 0.67), 84.6% versus 53.3% on second assessment (p = 0.11), and 100% vs. 54.5% on third trough assessment (p = 0.045). AT-III activity did not differ between high-risk trauma patients with goal and subprophylactic enoxaparin anti-Xa concentrations, although future investigation is warranted. Enoxaparin dose adjustment rather than frequency adjustment may be associated with a higher proportion of patients achieving goal anti-Xa over time.

Reversal of apixaban and rivaroxaban with andexanet alfa prior to invasive or surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes following andexanet alfa reversal of factor Xa inhibitors in patients requiring urgent or emergent invasive procedures are lacking. This study aimed to describe efficacy and safety outcomes following andexanet alfa administration within 24 h of an invasive procedure. METHODS: This single-center, observational, retrospective study included patients who received andexanet alfa within 24 h of an invasive or surgical procedure. The primary outcome was hemostatic efficacy graded as excellent, good, or poor using similar definitions to the ANNEXA-4 criteria. Secondary outcomes included hospital discharge disposition, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, 30-day mortality, 30-day thromboischemic event rates, and serum coagulation assay changes pre- and postreversal. RESULTS: Forty-four patients met inclusion criteria; of these, 27 (62.8%) received apixaban and 16 (37.2%) were treated with rivaroxaban prior to admission. The indications for reversal were categorized as intracranial (n = 20 [45.5%]) or extracranial (n = 24 [54.5%]) sites. Majority of patients required emergent operative procedures (18 [40.9%]), followed by invasive device placement (10 [22.7%]) or arterial embolization (9 [20.5%]). Thirty-eight (86.4%) patients were able to be adequately graded for hemostatic efficacy. Overall, 30 (78.9%) patients achieved excellent or good hemostasis within 24 h after periprocedural administration of andexanet alfa (19 [82.6%] apixaban vs. 11 [78.6%] rivaroxaban; 12 [80.0%] intracranial events vs. 18 [78.3%] extracranial events). Discharge disposition was most often to a short- or long-term care facilities (27 [61.4%]). Thirty-day mortality and thromboischemic complications occurred in 15 (34.1%) and 12 (27.3%) patients, respectively. Prothrombin time and antifactor Xa assay results were significantly decreased after andexanet alfa administration (p < 0.05) while thromboelastogram assay values (reaction time, kinetic time, and activated clotting time) showed nonsignificant changes pre- versus postreversal. CONCLUSION: Andexanet alfa may be used for urgent or emergent reversal of apixaban and rivaroxaban peri-procedurally with promising hemostatic outcomes. Further prospective, comparative clinical research is warranted.