Soluble glycoprotein VI is a predictor of major bleeding in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

We have shown that patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) have a high incidence of major bleeding. Recent studies have implicated elevated soluble glycoprotein VI (sGPVI) levels as a potential risk factor for bleeding. We sought to determine if elevated sGPVI plasma levels are associated with major bleeding events in patients with suspected HIT. We used a cohort of 310 hospitalized adult patients with suspected HIT who had a blood sample collected at the time HIT was suspected. Plasma sGPVI levels were measured by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Patients were excluded who had received a platelet transfusion within 1 day of sample collection because of the high levels of sGPVI in platelet concentrates. We assessed the association of sGPVI (high vs low) with International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding events by multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for other known risk factors for bleeding. Fifty-four patients were excluded due to recent platelet transfusion, leaving 256 patients for analysis. Eighty-nine (34.8%) patients had a major bleeding event. Median sGPVI levels were significantly elevated in patients with major bleeding events compared with those without major bleeding events (49.09 vs 31.93 ng/mL; P < .001). An sGPVI level >43 ng/mL was independently associated with major bleeding after adjustment for critical illness, sepsis, cardiopulmonary bypass surgery, and degree of thrombocytopenia (adjusted odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-5.23). Our findings suggest that sGPVI is associated with major bleeding in hospitalized patients with suspected HIT. sGPVI may be a novel biomarker to predict bleeding risk in patients with suspected HIT.

Prospective comparison of the HEP score and 4Ts score for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

The HIT Expert Probability (HEP) score compared favorably with the 4Ts score in a retrospective study. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the HEP score compared with the 4Ts score in a prospective cohort of 310 patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). A member of the clinical team calculated the HEP score and 4Ts score. An independent panel adjudicated HIT status based on a clinical summary as well as the results of HIT laboratory testing. The prevalence of HIT in the study population was 14.7%. At a cutoff of ≥3, the HEP score was 95.3% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.2-99.4) and 35.7% specific (95% CI, 29.8-42.0) for HIT. A 4Ts score of ≥4 had a sensitivity of 97.7% (95% CI, 86.2-99.8) and specificity of 32.9% (95% CI, 27.2-39.1). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUCs) for the HEP score and 4Ts score were similar (0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87] vs 0.76 [95% CI, 0.69-0.83]; P = .12). The HEP score exhibited a significantly higher AUC than the 4Ts score in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) (0.86 vs 0.79; P = .03). Among trainee scorers, the HEP score performed significantly better than the 4Ts score (AUC, 0.80 vs 0.73; P = .03). Our data suggest that either the 4Ts score or the HEP score may be used in clinical practice. The HEP score may be preferable in ICU patients and among less experienced clinicians.