Key result
Monitoring UFH with the anti-Xa assay reduced mean time to therapeutic anticoagulation compared to aPTT (28 vs 48 hours, p<0.001) and increased achievement at 24 hours (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.5-8.7).
Why the study?
Does monitoring with anti-Xa HA improve time to therapeutic anticoagulation compared to aPTT in patients receiving intravenous UFH?
Cohort (n=100)
No
Does monitoring with anti-Xa HA improve time to therapeutic anticoagulation compared to aPTT in patients receiving intravenous UFH?
Absolute Event Rate: 28% vs 48%
p-value: p=< 0.001
Monitoring intravenous UFH with anti-Xa HA achieves therapeutic anticoagulation more rapidly and maintains values within goal range longer than aPTT monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anti-Xa monitoring may shorten time to therapeutic UFH levels; hypothesis-generating pending randomized outcome trials.
Guervil et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Patients receiving intravenous unfractionated heparin (n=100). Antifactor Xa heparin assay (anti-Xa HA) monitoring vs. Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) monitoring was evaluated on Time to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation (hours) (p=< 0.001). Monitoring UFH with the anti-Xa assay reduced mean time to therapeutic anticoagulation compared to aPTT (28 vs 48 hours, p<0.001) and increased achievement at 24 hours (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.5-8.7).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: