Scoring systems for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT): Whither now?

Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia: A Review of New Concepts in Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Management

Knowledge on heparin-induced thrombocytopenia keeps increasing. Recent progress on diagnosis and management as well as several discoveries concerning its pathogenesis have been made. However, many aspects of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia remain partly unknown, and exact application of these new insights still need to be addressed. This article reviews the main new concepts in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Prediction of Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT) Using a Combination of 4Ts Score and Screening Immune Assays

Clinical assessment (4Ts) followed by testing for Heparin/platelet factor 4 (HPF4) antibody in intermediate and high risk patients is the standard algorithm of pretest for Heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), and the diagnosis is confirmed by serotonin releasing assay (SRA) in those who have positive antibodies. We conducted a retrospective analysis in a cohort of patients treated in a community hospital who had HIT antibody test by either ELISA or a rapid Particle Immunofiltration Assay (PIFA), regardless of their 4Ts scores. Among 224 patients, 17 had HIT. The PPV for those with a 4 T score ≥4 was 10.4%, which misdianosed 3 patients with HIT who tested positive for antibodies. Combining 4 T score ≥4 AND positive HIT antibody showed a PPV of 20.3% and a sensitivity of 70.6%, misdiagnosing 5 HIT patients. Using 4Ts ≥4 OR positive HIT antibody showed 100% sensitivity and 100% negative predictive value (NPV). The ELISA test had 100% sensitivity and 100% NPV, while the PIFA test missed 2 HIT patients, with sensitivity of 60% and NPV of 96.7%. Our results suggest that SRA testing should be conducted if a patient presents with a 4 T score ≥4 OR a positive HIT antibody, and antibody tests should be conducted for every patient suspected of HIT.

Prevalence and Overtesting of True Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in a 591-Bed Tertiary Care, Teaching Hospital

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type II (HIT) is a rare but potentially fatal antibody-mediated reaction to all forms of heparin (unfractionated heparin, low-molecular weight heparin, heparin flushes, and heparin-coated catheters), which can lead to HIT with thrombosis. Two tests commonly used to screen for HIT include the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and serotonin release assay (SRA). This is a retrospective chart review study conducted from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2014, to estimate the rate of true HIT in critical care patients at Winthrop-University Hospital, located in Mineola, New York. Patients are classified as positive for HIT if both ELISA and SRA immunoassays are positive. We reviewed 507 heparin immunoassays, excluding 64 who had an inappropriate ELISA test sent due to no administration of heparin, enoxaparin, or heparin lock flush at this or previous hospital stays at Winthrop. Of the 443 heparin immunoassays, ELISA results were positive for 66 patients (15.1%), and only 11 (2.5%) patients had true cases of HIT with a 95% confidence interval of 1.3% to 4.4%. The 4T score for those with true HIT (median: 5.0) was statistically higher compared to those without true HIT (median: 2.0; P < .001). Despite guidelines in place, overtesting for HIT is still a prevalent issue.

Safety and efficacy of starting warfarin after two consecutive platelet count rises in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines on the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) recommend warfarin initiation when platelet levels recover to 150×10(9)/L or more. However, many patients may not achieve this platelet level or may have slow platelet recovery. The aim of this study is to determine if initiating warfarin when platelets start trending upward instead of at a specific level is safe and effective in patients diagnosed with HIT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two groups of patients diagnosed and treated for HIT in a tertiary care hospital were assessed for HIT-related outcomes: 28 patients had warfarin initiated after platelets recovered to 150×10(9)/L or more and 30 patients had warfarin initiated prior to platelet recovery.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the rate of thrombosis, venous limb gangrene, or limb amputation. Three patients died during the data collection period, all deemed to be unrelated to HIT by independent investigators. The average hospital length of stay was 22.2±12.7days and 38.8±19.1days for patients who started warfarin at platelets less than 150×10(9)/L and platelets greater than or equal to 150×10(9)/L respectively (P=0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggests that the absolute platelet level at which warfarin is initiated does not affect the rate of thrombosis or mortality but may shorten overall hospital length of stay and associated costs. Therefore, it may be more important to observe an upward trend in platelets rather than striving to achieve an absolute platelet level before starting warfarin in patients with HIT.

How we manage patients with heparin induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) remains a rare, but significant, condition related to mortality and morbidity. The incidence has decreased with reduced use of unfractionated heparin, with the exception of cardiac surgery. Due to the high risk of thrombosis, a switch to a non-heparin anticoagulant is required, until platelet counts normalize. Within the acute setting, argatroban, fondaparinux and direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACS) are therapeutic options. In patients with HIT-associated thrombosis or who require long-term anticoagulation, warfarin remains the preference, but DOACs are attractive alternatives.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid immunoassays for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. A systematic review and meta-analysis

The platelet factor 4/heparin ELISA has limited specificity for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and frequently does not provide same-day results. Rapid immunoassays (RIs) have been developed which provide results in 30 minutes or less. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of RIs for HIT. We searched the literature for studies in which samples from patients with suspected HIT were tested using a RI and a functional assay against which the performance of the RI could be measured. We performed sensitivity analyses of studies that directly compared different RIs with each other and with ELISAs. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity for each RI were calculated. Twenty-three articles, collectively involving six different RIs, met eligibility criteria. All RIs exhibited high sensitivity (0.96 to 1.00); there was wider variability in specificity (0.68 to 0.94). Specificity of the IgG-specific chemiluminescent assay (IgG-CA) was greater than the polyspecific chemiluminescent assay [0.94 (95 %CI 0.89-0.99) vs 0.82 (0.77-0.87)]. The particle gel immunoassay demonstrated greater specificity than the polyspecific ELISA [0.96 (0.95-0.97) vs 0.91 (0.89-0.92)]. The IgG-CA and lateral flow immunoassay [0.94 (0.91-0.97)] exhibited greater specificity than the IgG-specific ELISA [0.86 (0.82-0.90)]. Given their high sensitivity and rapid turnaround time, RIs are a reliable means of excluding HIT at the point-of-care in patients with low or intermediate clinical probability. Additionally, some RIs have greater specificity than HIT ELISAs. In summary, IgG-specific RIs appear to have improved diagnostic accuracy compared with ELISAs in patients with suspected HIT and may reduce misdiagnosis and overtreatment.