PF4 activates the c-Mpl-Jak2 pathway in platelets.

ABSTRACT: Platelet factor 4 (PF4) is an abundant chemokine that is released from platelet α-granules on activation. PF4 is central to the pathophysiology of vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) in which antibodies to PF4 form immune complexes with PF4, which activate platelets and neutrophils through Fc receptors. In this study, we show that PF4 binds and activates the thrombopoietin receptor, cellular myeloproliferative leukemia protein (c-Mpl), on platelets. This leads to the activation of Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) and phosphorylation of signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) 3 and STAT5, leading to platelet aggregation. Inhibition of the c-Mpl-JAK2 pathway inhibits platelet aggregation to PF4, VITT sera, and the combination of PF4 and IgG isolated from VITT patient plasma. The results support a model in which PF4-based immune complexes activate platelets through binding of the Fc domain to FcγRIIA and PF4 to c-Mpl.

Postprocedural Anticoagulation After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) is frequently administered after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, although no conclusive data support this practice. METHODS: The RIGHT trial (Comparison of Anticoagulation Prolongation vs no Anticoagulation in STEMI Patients After Primary PCI) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority trial conducted at 53 centers in China. Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned by center to receive low-dose PPA or matching placebo for at least 48 hours. Before trial initiation, each center selected 1 of 3 PPA regimens (40 mg of enoxaparin once daily subcutaneously; 10 U·kg·h of unfractionated heparin intravenously, adjusted to maintain activated clotting time between 150 and 220 seconds; or 0.2 mg·kg·h of bivalirudin intravenously). The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate superiority of PPA to reduce the primary efficacy end point of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis (definite), or urgent revascularization (any vessel) within 30 days. The key secondary objective was to evaluate the effect of each specific anticoagulation regimen (enoxaparin, unfractionated heparin, or bivalirudin) on the primary efficacy end point. The primary safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 to 5 bleeding at 30 days. RESULTS: Between January 10, 2019, and September 18, 2021, a total of 2989 patients were randomized. The primary efficacy end point occurred in 37 patients (2.5%) in both the PPA and placebo groups (hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.57]). The incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 to 5 bleeding did not differ between the PPA and placebo groups (8 [0.5%] vs 11 [0.7%] patients; hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.83]). CONCLUSIONS: Routine PPA after primary percutaneous coronary intervention was safe but did not reduce 30-day ischemic events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03664180.

Anticoagulation and Bleeding during Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Insights from the PROTECMO Study.

Rationale: Definitive guidelines for anticoagulation management during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) are lacking, whereas bleeding complications continue to pose major challenges. Objectives: To describe anticoagulation modalities and bleeding events in adults receiving VV ECMO. Methods: This was an international prospective observational study in 41 centers, from December 2018 to February 2021. Anticoagulation was recorded daily in terms of type, dosage, and monitoring strategy. Bleeding events were reported according to site, severity, and impact on mortality. Measurements and Main Results: The study cohort included 652 patients, and 8,471 days on ECMO were analyzed. Unfractionated heparin was the initial anticoagulant in 77% of patients, and the most frequently used anticoagulant during the ECMO course (6,221 d; 73%). Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) was the most common test for monitoring coagulation (86% of days): the median value was 52 seconds (interquartile range, 39 to 61 s) but dropped by 5.3 seconds after the first bleeding event (95% confidence interval, -7.4 to -3.2; P < 0.01). Bleeding occurred on 1,202 days (16.5%). Overall, 342 patients (52.5%) experienced at least one bleeding event (one episode every 215 h on ECMO), of which 10 (1.6%) were fatal. In a multiple penalized Cox proportional hazard model, higher aPTT was a potentially modifiable risk factor for the first episode of bleeding (for 20-s increase; hazard ratio, 1.07). Conclusions: Anticoagulation during VV ECMO was a dynamic process, with frequent stopping in cases of bleeding and restart according to the clinical picture. Future studies might explore lower aPTT targets to reduce the risk of bleeding.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During PCI in NSTEMI: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Large Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefit:risk profile of bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to provide conclusive answers. We sought to compare the outcomes of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in all 5 trials that randomized ≥1000 patients with any myocardial infarction undergoing PCI to bivalirudin versus heparin (MATRIX [Minimizing Adverse Hemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox], VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART [Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial], ISAR-REACT 4 [Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 4], ACUITY [Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy], and BRIGHT [Bivalirudin in Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Heparin and GPI Plus Heparin Trial]). The primary effectiveness and safety end points were 30-day all-cause mortality and serious bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 12 155 patients were randomized: 6040 to bivalirudin (52.3% with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion), and 6115 to heparin (53.2% with planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between bivalirudin and heparin (1.2% versus 1.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.86-1.79]; P=0.25). Cardiac mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis rates were also not significantly different. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding (both access site-related and non-access site-related) compared with heparin (3.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72; P<0.0001). Outcomes were consistent regardless of use of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion or routine lycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use with heparin and during 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin and heparin did not result in significantly different rates of mortality or ischemic events, including stent thrombosis and reinfarction. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding compared with heparin arising both from the access site and nonaccess sites.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Pathologic Antibodies to Platelet Factor 4 after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic is vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Within a year, several vaccines have been developed and millions of doses delivered. Reporting of adverse events is a critical postmarketing activity. METHODS: We report findings in 23 patients who presented with thrombosis and thrombocytopenia 6 to 24 days after receiving the first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AstraZeneca). On the basis of their clinical and laboratory features, we identify a novel underlying mechanism and address the therapeutic implications. RESULTS: In the absence of previous prothrombotic medical conditions, 22 patients presented with acute thrombocytopenia and thrombosis, primarily cerebral venous thrombosis, and 1 patient presented with isolated thrombocytopenia and a hemorrhagic phenotype. All the patients had low or normal fibrinogen levels and elevated d-dimer levels at presentation. No evidence of thrombophilia or causative precipitants was identified. Testing for antibodies to platelet factor 4 (PF4) was positive in 22 patients (with 1 equivocal result) and negative in 1 patient. On the basis of the pathophysiological features observed in these patients, we recommend that treatment with platelet transfusions be avoided because of the risk of progression in thrombotic symptoms and that the administration of a nonheparin anticoagulant agent and intravenous immune globulin be considered for the first occurrence of these symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains critical for control of the Covid-19 pandemic. A pathogenic PF4-dependent syndrome, unrelated to the use of heparin therapy, can occur after the administration of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. Rapid identification of this rare syndrome is important because of the therapeutic implications.

Impact of omitting the intravenous heparin bolus on outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation.

BACKGROUND: Early guidance recommended a bolus of intravenous heparin at the beginning of leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation procedures. However, due to concern about bleeding complications, more recent practice has tended toward omitting the bolus and only running a continuous heparin infusion through the introducer sheath. The impact of omitting the heparin bolus on procedural outcomes is not clear. METHODS: We reviewed all Medtronic Micra LP implants at our institution from 9/2014 to 9/2022. The decision to bolus with heparin was at operator discretion. RESULTS: Among 621 LP implants, 326 received an intravenous heparin bolus, 243 did not, and 52 patients were excluded because heparin bolus status could not be confirmed. There was a trend toward more frequent omission of the heparin bolus with more recent implants. Median follow-up after LP implant was 14.3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8.4-27.9) months. There was no difference between heparin bolus and no bolus groups in the number of device deployments/recaptures (1.42 ± 0.81 vs. 1.31 ± 0.66, p = .15). Implant-related adverse events were also similar between heparin bolus and no bolus groups: access-site hematoma requiring intervention (7 vs. 5, p = .99), pseudoaneurysm (1 vs. 1, p = .99), cardiac perforation (1 vs. 1, p = .99), intraprocedural device thrombus formation (2 vs. 4, p = .41), 30-day rehospitalization (21 vs. 15, p = .98), and 30-day all-cause mortality (16 vs. 14, p = .70). There was one additional nonfatal cardiac perforation in a patient who was excluded due to unknown heparin bolus status. Regarding device electrical parameters between heparin bolus and no bolus groups, there were no significant differences at the time of implant: pacing capture threshold 0.5 ± 0.4 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = .10; pacing impedance 739.9 ± 226.4 vs. 719.1 ± 215.4, p = .52; R wave sensing 11.7 ± 5.7 vs. 12.0 ± 5.4, p = .34). Long-term device performance was also similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Omission of the systemic heparin bolus at the time of LP implantation appears safe in appropriately selected patients. Heparin bolus may still be considered in long cases requiring multiple device deployments or in patients at high risk for thrombotic complications.

Off-the-shelf cryopreserved platelets for the detection of HIT and VITT antibodies.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is suspected much more often than it is confirmed. Technically simple platelet factor 4 (PF4)-polyanion enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are sensitive but nonspecific. In contrast, accurate functional tests such as the serotonin release assay, heparin-induced platelet activation assay, and PF4-dependent P-selectin expression assay require fresh platelets and have complex assay end points, limiting their availability to specialized reference laboratories. To enable broad deployment of functional testing, we sought to extend platelet viability significantly by optimizing storage conditions and developed a simple functional assay end point by measuring the release of a platelet α-granule protein, thrombospondin-1 (TSP1), in an ELISA format. Platelet cryopreservation conditions were optimized by freezing platelets at controlled cooling rates that preserve activatability. Several-month-old cryopreserved platelets were treated with PF4 or heparin and were evaluated for their ability to be activated by HIT and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) antibodies in the TSP1 release assay (TRA). HIT and spontaneous HIT patient samples induced significantly higher TSP1 release using both PF4-treated (PF4-TRA) and heparin-treated cryopreserved platelets relative to samples from patients suspected of HIT who lacked platelet-activating antibodies. This latter group included several patients that tested strongly positive in PF4-polyanion ELISA but were not platelet-activating. Four VITT patient samples tested in the TRA activated PF4-treated, but not heparin-treated, cryopreserved platelets, consistent with recent data suggesting the requirement for PF4-treated platelets for VITT antibody detection. These findings have the potential to transform the testing paradigm in HIT and VITT, making decentralized, technically simple functional testing available for rapid and accurate in-hospital diagnosis.

ABO O blood group as a risk factor for platelet reactivity in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an unpredictable, potentially catastrophic adverse effect resulting from an immune response to platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin complexes. We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) with positive functional assay as the outcome in a large discovery cohort of patients divided into 3 groups: (1) functional assay-positive cases (n = 1269), (2) antibody-positive (functional assay-negative) controls (n = 1131), and (3) antibody-negative controls (n = 1766). Significant associations (α = 5 × 10-8) were investigated in a replication cohort (α = 0.05) of functional assay-confirmed HIT cases (n = 177), antibody-positive (function assay-negative) controls (n = 258), and antibody-negative controls (n = 351). We observed a strong association for positive functional assay with increasing PF4/heparin immunoglobulin-G (IgG) level (odds ratio [OR], 16.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.83-19.74; P = 1.51 × 10-209) and female sex (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .034). The rs8176719 C insertion variant in ABO was significantly associated with positive functional assay status in the discovery cohort (frequency = 0.41; OR, 0.751; 95% CI, 0.682-0.828; P = 7.80 × 10-9) and in the replication cohort (OR, 0.467; 95% CI, 0.228-0.954; P = .0367). The rs8176719 C insertion, which encodes all non-O blood group alleles, had a protective effect, indicating that the rs8176719 C deletion and the O blood group were risk factors for HIT (O blood group OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.26-1.61; P = 3.09 × 10-8). Meta-analyses indicated that the ABO association was independent of PF4/heparin IgG levels and was stronger when functional assay-positive cases were compared with antibody-positive (functional assay-negative) controls than with antibody-negative controls. Sequencing and fine-mapping of ABO demonstrated that rs8176719 was the causal single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Our results clarify the biology underlying HIT pathogenesis with ramifications for prediction and may have important implications for related conditions, such as vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

Most anti-PF4 antibodies in vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia are transient.

Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is triggered by vaccination against COVID-19 with adenovirus vector vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; Ad26.COV2-S). In this observational study, we followed VITT patients for changes in their reactivity of platelet-activating antiplatelet factor 4 (PF4) immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies by an anti-PF4/heparin IgG enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and a functional test for PF4-dependent, platelet-activating antibodies, and new thrombotic complications. Sixty-five VITT patients (41 females; median, 51 years; range, 18-80 years) were followed for a median of 25 weeks (range, 3-36 weeks). In 48/65 patients (73.8%; CI, 62.0% to 83.0%) the functional assay became negative. The median time to negative functional test result was 15.5 weeks (range, 5-28 weeks). In parallel, EIA optical density (OD) values decreased from median 3.12 to 1.52 (P < .0001), but seroreversion to a negative result was seen in only 14 (21.5%) patients. Five (7.5%) patients showed persistent platelet-activating antibodies and high EIA ODs for >11 weeks. None of the 29 VITT patients who received a second vaccination dose with an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine developed new thromboses or relevant increase in anti-PF4/heparin IgG EIA OD, regardless of whether PF4-dependent platelet-activating antibodies were still present. PF4-dependent platelet-activating antibodies are transient in most patients with VITT. VITT patients can safely receive a second COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine shot.

Natural history of PF4 antibodies in vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid development of a range of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) is a rare but life-threatening complication of primarily adenoviral-based vaccines associated with the presence of antibodies to a PF4/polyanion neoepitope and measured by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Presented are serial anti-PF4/polyanion antibody, platelet, and D-dimer measurements in a large cohort of patients and their relation to relapse. Overall, 51% of patients using the Stago assay had persistently positive anti-PF4/polyanion levels 100 days' postdiagnosis, whereas 94% of patients monitored by using the Immucor assay remain positive. The median duration of positivity of the PF4 assay is 87 days, with 72% of patients remaining positive after a median follow-up of 105 days. The use of plasma exchange seemed to reduce anti-PF4/polyanion levels and increase platelet counts in the acute setting more rapidly than other therapies. The rate of relapse in this study was 12.6%, with all relapsed cases exhibiting persistently positive PF4 antibodies and falling platelet counts. Only one patient had extension of their thrombosis. Overall, despite the persistence of PF4 antibodies in 72% of patients, the rate of relapse was low and did not seem to result in recrudescence of the aggressive clinical picture seen at index presentation. Monitoring of these patients in the UK cohort is ongoing and will aid in definition of the natural history of this novel condition.

Laboratory approach for vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia diagnosis in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a rare adverse effect characterized by thrombocytopenia and thrombosis occurring after COVID-19 vaccination. VITT pathophysiology is not fully unravelled but shows similarities to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). HIT is characterized by the presence of antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin complex, which can activate platelets in an FcγRIIa-dependent manner, whereas IgG-antibodies directed against PF4 play an important role in VITT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We characterized all clinically suspected VITT cases in the Netherlands from a diagnostic perspective and hypothesized that patients who developed both thrombocytopenia and thrombosis display underlying mechanisms similar to those in HIT. We conducted an anti-PF4 ELISA and a functional PF4-induced platelet activation assay (PIPAA) with and without blocking the platelet-FcγRIIa and found positivity in both tests, suggesting VITT with mechanisms similar to those in VITT. RESULTS: We identified 65 patients with both thrombocytopenia and thrombosis among 275 clinically suspected VITT cases. Of these 65 patients, 14 (22%) tested positive for anti-PF4 and PF4-dependent platelet activation. The essential role of platelet-FcγRIIa in VITT with mechanisms similar to those in HIT was evident, as platelet activation was inhibited by an FcγRIIa-blocking antibody in all 14 patients. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that only a small proportion of clinically suspected VITT patients with thrombocytopenia and thrombosis have anti-PF4-inducing, FcɣRIIa-dependent platelet activation, suggesting an HIT-like pathophysiology. This leaves the possibility for the presence of another type of pathophysiology ('non-HIT like') leading to VITT. More research on pathophysiology is warranted to improve the diagnostic algorithm and to identify novel therapeutic and preventive strategies.

Comparison of bleeding and thrombotic outcomes in veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: Heparin versus bivalirudin.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications with heparin versus bivalirudin use in veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients placed on V-V ECMO with intravenous anticoagulation with either heparin or bivalirudin. Time to thrombotic event and major bleed were analyzed in addition to related outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 95 patients placed on V-V ECMO: 61 receiving heparin, 34 bivalirudin. The bivalirudin group had a higher rate of severe COVID-19, higher BMI, and longer ECMO duration. Despite this, bivalirudin was associated with reduced risk of thrombotic event (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.32, p < .001) and increased average lifespan of the circuit membrane lung (16 vs. 10 days, p = 0.004). While there was no difference in major bleeding, the bivalirudin group required fewer transfusions of packed red blood cells and platelets per 100 ECMO days (means of 13 vs. 39, p = 0.004; 5 vs. 19, p = .014, respectively). Lastly, the bivalirudin group had improved survival to ECMO decannulation in univariate analysis (median OS 53 vs. 26 days, p = .015). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis of bivalirudin versus heparin, bivalirudin is a viable option for V-V ECMO and associated with lower risk of thrombotic complications and fewer transfusion requirements.

Novel Strategy to Combat the Procoagulant Phenotype in Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Using 12-LOX Inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a major concern for all individuals that undergo cardiac bypass surgeries or require prolonged heparin exposure. HIT is a life- and limb-threatening adverse drug reaction with an immune response following the formation of ultra-large immune complexes that drive platelet activation through the receptor FcγRIIA. Thrombotic events remain high following the standard of care treatment with anticoagulants, while increasing risk of bleeding complications. This study sought to investigate a novel approach to treatment of HIT. Recent reports demonstrate increased procoagulant activity in HIT; however, these reports required analysis ex vivo, and relevance in vivo remains unclear. METHODS: Using human and mouse model systems, we investigated the cooperativity of PARs (protease-activated receptors) and FcγRIIA in HIT. We challenged humanized FcγRIIA transgenic mice with or without endogenous mouse Par4 (denoted as IIA-Par4+/+ or IIA-Par4-/-, respectively) with a well-established model IgG immune complex (anti [α]-CD9). Furthermore, we assessed the procoagulant phenotype and efficacy to treat HIT utilizing inhibitor of 12-LOX (12[S]-lipoxygenase), VLX-1005, previously reported to decrease platelet activation downstream of FcγRIIA and PAR4, using the triple allele HIT mouse model. RESULTS: IIA-Par4+/+ mice given αCD9 were severely thrombocytopenic, with extensive platelet-fibrin deposition in the lung. In contrast, IIA-Par4-/- mice had negligible thrombocytopenia or pulmonary platelet-fibrin thrombi. We observed that pharmacological inhibition of 12-LOX resulted in a significant reduction in both platelet procoagulant phenotype ex vivo, and thrombocytopenia and thrombosis in our humanized mouse model of HIT in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate for the first time the need for dual platelet receptor (PAR and FcγRIIA) stimulation for fibrin formation in HIT in vivo. These results extend our understanding of HIT pathophysiology and provide a scientific rationale for targeting the procoagulant phenotype as a possible therapeutic strategy in HIT.

Novel Tissue Factor Inhibition for Thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19: Primary Results of the ASPEN-COVID-19 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Thrombo-inflammation is central to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy. TF (tissue factor), a driver of disordered coagulation and inflammation in viral infections, may be a therapeutic target in COVID-19. The safety and efficacy of the novel TF inhibitor rNAPc2 (recombinant nematode anticoagulation protein c2) in COVID-19 are unknown. METHODS: ASPEN-COVID-19 was an international, randomized, open-label, active comparator clinical trial with blinded end point adjudication. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels were randomized 1:1:2 to lower or higher dose rNAPc2 on days 1, 3, and 5 followed by heparin on day 8 or to heparin per local standard of care. In comparisons of the pooled rNAPc2 versus heparin groups, the primary safety end point was major or nonmajor clinically relevant International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding through day 8. The primary efficacy end point was proportional change in D-dimer concentration from baseline to day 8, or discharge if before day 8. Patients were followed for 30 days. RESULTS: Among 160 randomized patients, median age was 54 years, 43.1% were female, and 38.8% had severe baseline COVID-19. There were no significant differences between rNAPc2 and heparin in bleeding or other safety events. Overall, median change in D-dimer was -16.8% (interquartile range, -45.7 to 36.8; P=0.41) with rNAPc2 treatment and -11.2% (-36.0 to 34.4; P=0.91) with heparin (Pintergroup=0.47). In prespecified analyses, in severely ill patients, D-dimer levels tended to increase more within the heparin (median, 29.0% [-14.9 to 145.2]; P=0.02) than the rNAPc2 group (median, 25.9% [-49.1 to 136.4]; P=0.14; Pintergroup=0.96); in mildly ill patients, D-dimer levels were reduced within each group with a numerically greater reduction with rNAPc2 versus heparin (rNAPc2 median, -32.7% [-44.7 to 4.3]; P=0.007 and heparin median, -16.8% [-36.0 to 0.5]; P=0.008, Pintergroup=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: rNAPc2 treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was well tolerated without excess bleeding or serious adverse events but did not significantly reduce D-dimer more than heparin at day 8. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04655586.

Heparin Dosing During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Obesity.

ABSTRACT: Unfractionated heparin is the most common anticoagulant used during percutaneous coronary intervention. Practice guidelines recommend an initial weight-based heparin bolus dose between 70 and 100 U/kg to achieve target activated clotting time (ACT) of 250-300 seconds. The impact of severe obesity on weight-based heparin dosing is not well studied. We performed a retrospective analysis of 424 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who received heparin for anticoagulation. We collected detailed data on cumulative heparin administration and measured ACT values in this cohort. We performed separate analyses to identify clinical predictors that may affect dose-response curves. There was significant variability in dosing with mean dose of 103.9 ± 32-U/kg heparin administered to achieve target ACT ≥ 250 seconds. Women received higher initial heparin doses when adjusted for weight than men (97.6 ± 31 vs. 89 ± 28 U/kg, P = 0.004), and only 49% of patients achieved ACT ≥ 250 s with the initial recommended heparin bolus dose (70-100 U/kg). Lower heparin dose (U/kg) was required in obese patients to achieve target ACT. In multivariate linear regression analysis with ACT as dependent variable, after inclusion of weight-based dosing for heparin, body mass index was the only significant covariate. In conclusion, there is significant variability in the therapeutic effect of heparin, with a lower weight-adjusted heparin dose required in obese patients.

Association of Argatroban Dose With Coagulation Laboratory Test in Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Activated Clotting Time vs Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time.

BACKGROUND: Only some studies have directly compared and analyzed the roles of activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and activated clotting time (ACT) in coagulation monitoring during argatroban administration. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the correlation of argatroban dose with ACT and aPTT values and to identify the optimal coagulation test for argatroban dose adjustment. METHODS: We evaluated 55 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) who received argatroban for more than 72 hours. The correlation between argatroban dose and aPTT and ACT values was evaluated. To compare argatroban dose and bleeding events according to liver dysfunction, the patients were divided into 2 groups based on alanine aminotransferase and total bilirubin. RESULTS: Among the 55 patients, a total of 459 doses and coagulation tests were evaluated. The aPTT and ACT values showed a weak correlation with argatroban dose, with the Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.261 (P < 0.001) and 0.194 (P = 0.001), respectively. The agreement between the target 150 to 180 seconds for ACT and 55 to 75 seconds for aPTT was observed in 140 patients (46.1%). Twenty-four patients (43.6%) had liver dysfunction when they started argatroban. The median argatroban dose was lower in the liver dysfunction group than in the control group (0.094 mcg/kg/min vs 0.169 mcg/kg/min, P = 0.020). Difference was not observed between the 2 groups in the amount of red blood cell (0.47 vs 0.43 pack, P = 0.909) and platelet (0.60 vs 0.08 pack, P = 0.079) transfusion per day. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: A weak correlation was observed between argatroban dose and the aPTT and ACT values. However, the agreement between aPTT and ACT was only 46.1% regarding the scope of target range. Further research is necessary to determine how to assess the optimal argatroban dose for patients administered argatroban while undergoing ECMO at the intensive care unit.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban and Low Molecular Heparin in Preventing Venous Thromboembolism in Inpatient Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies on using rivaroxaban and low molecular heparin (LMWH) to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus LMWH for the primary prevention of VTE in inpatient cancer patients. METHODS: Information on patients was collected through 6-month follow-up and medical record inquiries. Clinical outcomes included VTE, total bleeding, thrombosis, major bleeding, minor bleeding, all-cause death, and a composite endpoint of bleeding, thrombosis, and death. RESULTS: A total of 602 hospitalized cancer patients were included in this study. During 6 months of follow-up, there were 26 VTE events (8.6%), 42 total bleeding events (7.0%), 62 all-cause deaths (10.3%), and 140 composite endpoints (23.3%). After adjusting for various confounding factors, there were no significant differences between the rivaroxaban and LMWH for VTE events (OR = 0.851, 95% CI [0.387-1.872], P=0.688), total bleeding (OR = 1.690, 95% CI [0.768-3.719], P = 0.192], thrombosis events (OR = 0.919, 95% CI [0.520-1.624], P = 0.772], major bleeding (OR = 0.276, 95% CI [0.037-2.059], P = 0.209), all-cause death (OR = 0.994, 95% CI [0.492-2.009], P = 0.987), and composite endpoints (OR = 0.994, 95% CI [0.492-2.009], P = 0.987), while minor bleeding (OR = 3.661 95% CI [1.000-7.083], P = 0.050) was significantly higher in the rivaroxaban than in the LMWH. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In thromboprophylaxis in inpatient cancer patients, rivaroxaban has a similar rate of VTE and bleeding events as LMWH. Our results may provide a reference for the clinical use of rivaroxaban to prevent VTE in hospitalized cancer patients.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Low Body Weight Critically Ill Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare bleeding and thromboembolic events in low body weight patients receiving reduced-dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis versus standard-dose VTE prophylaxis. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study. SETTING: Five Ascension Health Hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult, critically ill, low body weight (≤50 kg) patients who received either reduced-dose VTE prophylaxis (n = 140) or standard-dose VTE prophylaxis (n = 279) for at least 48 h. INTERVENTION: Reduced-dose prophylaxis (enoxaparin 30 mg daily or heparin 5000 units every 12 h subcutaneously) or standard-dose prophylaxis (enoxaparin 40 mg daily, enoxaparin 30 mg every 12 h, or heparin 5000 units every 8 h subcutaneously). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 419 patients were included with a mean weight of 45.1 ± 4.2 kg in the standard-dose group and 44.0 ± 5.1 kg in the reduced-dose prophylaxis group (P = .02). The primary endpoint, composite bleeding, was significantly lower in patients receiving reduced-dose prophylaxis (5% vs 12.5%, P = .02). After adjusting for confounding factors, results remained consistent demonstrating reduced composite bleeding with reduced-dose prophylaxis (odds ratio: 0.36, 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.96). Major bleeding events occurred in 3.6% of reduced-dose patients compared with 8.6% in standard-dose patients (P = .056). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (5.4% vs 2.9%, P = .24) and VTE (2.2% vs 0%, P = .08) events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A reduced-dose VTE prophylaxis strategy in low body weight, critically ill patients was associated with a lower risk of composite bleeding and similar rate of thromboembolism.