Key result
The anti-FXa assay was unaffected by pre-analytical variables such as intentional short-draws (P=0.9878 for UFH, P=0.9060 for LMWH), unlike the aPTT assay.
Why the study?
Is the anti-FXa assay less affected by pre-analytical variables than the aPTT assay when monitoring patients on UFH or LMWH?
Population
46 subjects receiving either enoxaparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH)
Comparison
Anti-activated factor X chromogenic assay vs Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) assay
Design
Cross-sectional, Subjects were randomly selected
Authors
Loading...
Anti-FXa may offer more reliable UFH/LMWH monitoring amid pre-analytical variability; hypothesis-generating for prospective outcome trials.
Observational (n=46)
Is the anti-FXa assay less affected by pre-analytical variables than the aPTT assay when monitoring patients on UFH or LMWH?
p-value: p=0.9878 for UFH and 0.9060 for LMWH
The anti-FXa assay is less affected by pre-analytical variables such as sodium citrate concentration and short-draws compared to the aPTT assay for monitoring heparin therapy.
McGlasson et al. (2005) conducted an observational in Receiving unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (n=46). Intentional short-draw (6:1 ratio) and varying sodium citrate concentrations (3.8% vs 3.2%) vs. Standard blood to anticoagulant ratio (9:1) was evaluated on Mean anti-FXa and aPTT assay results across different pre-analytical variables (p=0.9878 for UFH and 0.9060 for LMWH). The anti-FXa assay was unaffected by pre-analytical variables such as intentional short-draws (P=0.9878 for UFH, P=0.9060 for LMWH), unlike the aPTT assay.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: