Key result
STA Neoplastine R uniquely detects clinically relevant rivaroxaban levels with ~93% sensitivity despite normal PT.
Why the study?
The GIHP proposed using PT and aPTT normality to exclude most patients with rivaroxaban levels >30 ng/ml, but the real-life practicability of this approach was unverified.
Can standard PT and APTT reagents reliably exclude residual rivaroxaban levels >30 ng/ml in treated patients?
Population
Samples from rivaroxaban-treated patients
Comparison
PT testing with 4 reagents and APTT testing with 4 reagents
Design
Observational evaluation of clotting test sensitivity
Authors
Loading...
Degraded GIHP proposals for rivaroxaban bleeding management without specific assays leave open optimal strategies; prospective validation required.
Observational
Can standard PT and APTT reagents reliably exclude residual rivaroxaban levels >30 ng/ml in treated patients?
Standard PT and APTT tests, with the exception of the STA Neoplastine R reagent, lack the sensitivity to reliably exclude residual rivaroxaban levels >30 ng/ml, indicating that specific testing is mandatory.
Cauchie et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Patients treated with Rivaroxaban. Prothrombin Time (PT) and APTT testing vs. Specific dosage of the molecule was evaluated on Sensitivity to identify patients with Rivaroxaban level > 30 ng/ml despite a normal PT. STA Neoplastine R (NeoR) was the only PT reagent with sufficient sensitivity (93%) to identify patients with Rivaroxaban levels >30 ng/ml when PT is normal; other reagents lacked sensitivity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: