Clinical Use of Anti-Xa Monitoring in Malignancy-Associated Thrombosis

Thrombosis Pub Date : 2013-11-15 DOI:10.1155/2015/126975
S. Yentz, Oluwatoyosi A. Onwuemene, B. Stein, E. Cull, B. McMahon
{"title":"Clinical Use of Anti-Xa Monitoring in Malignancy-Associated Thrombosis","authors":"S. Yentz, Oluwatoyosi A. Onwuemene, B. Stein, E. Cull, B. McMahon","doi":"10.1155/2015/126975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is preferred for malignancy-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). Many providers monitor LMWH with anti-Xa levels, despite little validation on correspondence with patient outcome. Methods. This is a retrospective, single institution study of anti-Xa measurement in malignancy-associated thrombosis. Cases were identified using the Electronic Data Warehouse, and inclusion was confirmed by two independent reviewers. Malignancy type, thrombotic history, measurement rationale and accuracy, clinical context, and management changes were evaluated. Results. 167 cases met inclusion criteria. There was no clear rationale for anti-Xa testing in 56%. Impaired renal function (10%), documented or suspected recurrent thrombosis despite anticoagulation (9%), and bleeding (6%) were the most common reasons for testing. Incorrect measurement occurred in 44%. Renal impairment was not a significant impetus for testing, as 70% had a GFR > 60. BMI > 30 was present in 40%, and 28% had a BMI < 25. Clinical impact was low, as only 11% of patients had management changes. Conclusions. Provider education in accuracy and rationale for anti-Xa testing is needed. Our study illustrates uncertainty of interpretation and clinical impact of routine anti-Xa testing, as management was affected in few patients. It is not yet clear in which clinical context providers should send anti-Xa levels.","PeriodicalId":75222,"journal":{"name":"Thrombosis","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thrombosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/126975","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Introduction. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is preferred for malignancy-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). Many providers monitor LMWH with anti-Xa levels, despite little validation on correspondence with patient outcome. Methods. This is a retrospective, single institution study of anti-Xa measurement in malignancy-associated thrombosis. Cases were identified using the Electronic Data Warehouse, and inclusion was confirmed by two independent reviewers. Malignancy type, thrombotic history, measurement rationale and accuracy, clinical context, and management changes were evaluated. Results. 167 cases met inclusion criteria. There was no clear rationale for anti-Xa testing in 56%. Impaired renal function (10%), documented or suspected recurrent thrombosis despite anticoagulation (9%), and bleeding (6%) were the most common reasons for testing. Incorrect measurement occurred in 44%. Renal impairment was not a significant impetus for testing, as 70% had a GFR > 60. BMI > 30 was present in 40%, and 28% had a BMI < 25. Clinical impact was low, as only 11% of patients had management changes. Conclusions. Provider education in accuracy and rationale for anti-Xa testing is needed. Our study illustrates uncertainty of interpretation and clinical impact of routine anti-Xa testing, as management was affected in few patients. It is not yet clear in which clinical context providers should send anti-Xa levels.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
抗xa监测在恶性血栓形成中的临床应用
介绍。低分子肝素(LMWH)是首选的恶性相关静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)。许多提供者监测低分子肝素与抗xa水平,尽管很少验证对应的病人的结果。方法。这是一个回顾性的,单机构研究抗xa测量在恶性肿瘤相关血栓。使用电子数据仓库确定病例,并由两名独立审稿人确认纳入。评估了恶性肿瘤类型、血栓病史、测量原理和准确性、临床背景和管理变化。结果:167例符合纳入标准。在56%的患者中,没有明确的理由进行抗xa检测。肾功能受损(10%),尽管抗凝治疗,仍有记录或怀疑血栓复发(9%)和出血(6%)是最常见的检测原因。44%发生测量错误。肾功能损害并不是进行检测的重要原因,因为70%的患者GFR > 60。BMI > 30的占40%,BMI < 25的占28%。临床影响很低,因为只有11%的患者改变了管理方法。结论。需要对提供者进行关于抗xa检测的准确性和基本原理的教育。我们的研究说明了常规抗xa检测的解释和临床影响的不确定性,因为很少有患者的管理受到影响。目前尚不清楚在哪种临床情况下提供者应该发送抗xa水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pathogenesis of Thromboembolism and Endovascular Management Referral Patterns and Diagnostic Yield of Lung Scintigraphy in the Diagnosis of Acute Pulmonary Embolism. miR-19a and miR-20a and Tissue Factor Expression in Activated Human Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells. Medicinal Herbals with Antiplatelet Properties Benefit in Coronary Atherothrombotic Diseases The Incidence of Peripheral Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Surgical Patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1