Assessing the impact of a heparin-induced thrombocytopenia protocol on patient management, outcomes and cost

Quality improvement approaches to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a scoping review

Background

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a relatively uncommon condition characterized by 2 exceedingly common phenomena in hospitalized patients: thrombocytopenia and heparin exposure. Consequently, HIT is frequently overdiagnosed and inappropriately treated. These issues are the focus of many quality improvement (QI) initiatives.

Objectives

In this scoping review, we identified and characterized all published QI studies on improving the diagnosis and management of HIT.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search through April 2022 for studies reporting on QI interventions regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and/or prevention of HIT.

Results

Thirty studies were included in the final review. Studies were separated into 5 groups based on the focus of the interventions: increasing HIT recognition, reducing HIT incidence, reducing HIT overdiagnosis, promoting safer HIT management, and creating HIT task forces. Nine studies focused on the implementation of 4Ts score calculator into electronic medical record orders for HIT testing, while only 1 evaluated the impact of reducing unfractionated heparin use in favor of low-molecular-weight heparin. Six studies focused on the implementation of direct thrombin inhibitor management protocols, while none evaluated the use of alternative anticoagulants in HIT management.

Conclusion

The bulk of published HIT QI research focused on reducing overdiagnosis and promoting safer direct thrombin inhibitor therapy, while minimal attention has been devoted to HIT prevention and the use of evidence-based alternative HIT therapies.

Identification of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Surgical Critically Ill Patients by Using the HIT Expert Probability Score: An Observational Pilot Study

Background: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) remains a challenging diagnosis especially in surgical intensive care unit (SICU) patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate for the first time the diagnostic accuracy of the HIT Expert Probability (HEP) score in the early identification of HIT in SICU patients. Methods: The HEP and 4Ts scores were calculated in all patients with suspected HIT during their stay in our SICU. The diagnosis of HIT was finally confirmed (HIT+ group) or excluded (HIT− group) by an independent committee blinded to the HEP and 4Ts score values. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of a HEP score ≥ 5 for the diagnosis of HIT. The secondary outcome was the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the HEP and 4Ts scores in the diagnosis of HIT. Results: Respectively 6 and 113 patients were included in the HIT+ and HIT− groups. A HEP score value ≥ 5 had a sensitivity (95% confidence interval (95% CI)) of 1.00 (0.55−1.00), and a specificity (95% CI) of 0.92 (0.86−0.96). The AUC (95% CI) was significantly higher for the HEP score versus for the 4Ts score (0.967 (0.922−1.000) versus 0.707 (0.449−0.965); p = 0.035). Conclusions: A HEP score value < 5 could be helpful to rule out HIT in SICU patients.

Guidance for the practical management of the heparin anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious and often fatal medical condition with an increasing incidence. Despite the changing landscape of VTE treatment with the introduction of the new direct oral anticoagulants many uncertainties remain regarding the optimal use of traditional parenteral agents. This manuscript, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance based on existing guidelines and consensus expert opinion where guidelines are lacking. This specific chapter addresses the practical management of heparins including low molecular weight heparins and fondaparinux. For each anticoagulant a list of the most common practice related questions were created. Each question was addressed using a brief focused literature review followed by a multidisciplinary consensus guidance recommendation. Issues addressed included initial anticoagulant dosing recommendations, recommended baseline laboratory monitoring, managing dose adjustments, evidence to support a relationship between laboratory tests and meaningful clinical outcomes, special patient populations including extremes of weight and renal impairment, duration of necessary parenteral therapy during the transition to oral therapy, candidates for outpatient treatment where appropriate and management of over-anticoagulation and adverse effects including bleeding and heparin induced thrombocytopenia. This article concludes with a concise table of clinical management questions and guidance recommendations to provide a quick reference for the practical management of heparin, low molecular weight heparin and fondaparinux.

Evaluation of a pretest scoring system (4Ts) for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in a university hospital setting

The initial diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is made on clinical grounds because the assays with the highest sensitivity (eg, heparin-platelet factor 4 antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) and specificity (eg, serotonin release assay) may not be readily available. The clinical utility of the pretest scoring system, the 4Ts, was developed and validated by Lo et al in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2006. The pretest scoring system looks at the degree and timing of thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, and the possibility of other etiologies. Based on the 4T score, patients can be categorized as having a high, intermediate, or low probability of having HIT. We conducted a retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients who were tested for HIT during their hospitalization at Hahnemann University Hospital (Philadelphia, PA) in 2009. Of the 100 patients analyzed, 72, 23, and 5 patients had 4T pretest probability scores of low, intermediate, and high, respectively. A positive HIT ELISA (optical density > 1.0 unit) was detected in 0 of 72 patients (0%) in the low probability group, in 5 of 23 patients (22%) in the intermediate probability group, and in 2 of 5 patients (40%) in the high probability group. The average turnaround time for the HIT ELISA was 4 to 5 days. Fourteen (19%) of the 72 patients with a low pretest probability of HIT were treated with a direct thrombin inhibitor. Ten (71%) of the 14 patients in the low probability group treated with a direct thrombin inhibitor had a major complication of bleeding requiring blood transfusion support. In this retrospective study, a low 4T score showed 100% correlation with a negative HIT antibody assay. We recommend incorporating the 4T scoring system into institutional core measures when assessing a patient with suspected HIT, selecting only patients with intermediate to high probability for therapeutic intervention, which may translate into reduced morbidity and lower health care costs.