Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a frequent complication after cardiac surgery

Thrombocytopenia is a common problem in cardiovascular patients, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is therefore frequently suspected. Unfractionated heparin during cardiopulmonary bypass is particularly immunogenic as 25% to 50% post-cardiac surgery patients develop heparin-dependent antibodies but only 1 to 3% will develop HIT. These antibodies recognize a 'self protein', platelet factor 4 (PF4), bound to heparin. Antibodies associated with a high risk of HIT are mainly IgG1 which strongly activate platelets and coagulation, thereby causing thrombocytopenia and thrombosis. A biphasic evolution of platelet count with a secondary decrease after a previous increase following CPB or non-recovery of thrombocytopenia within 6 days post-operatively always requires screening for HIT antibodies. Both functional (platelet activation tests) and immunologic assays (antigen assays) are necessary in every patient to establish the diagnosis of HIT. When the clinical probability of HIT is high, the first requirement is to discontinue heparin, without waiting for results of laboratory investigations. An alternative anticoagulant such as danaparoid sodium (Orgaran) or lepirudin (Refludan) must then be administered since heparin withdrawal alone is insufficient to control the prothrombotic state associated with HIT. The risk of HIT will probably soon decrease due to the wider use of fondaparinux, which does not interact in vitro with PF4, but it could remain significant in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB.     

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis: a potential fatal complication in a routine treatment

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a severe complication of heparin therapy. Life-threatening thromboembolism (HITT) may occur in a large number of patients with HIT. In this article diagnostic problems and the clinical course of 4 typical patients are described. Diagnosis was based on the occurrence of thrombocytopenia during heparin therapy and was confirmed in vitro by an ELISA to heparin-platelet factor 4 antibodies, heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPAA) or the platelet aggregation assay (PAA). Thrombotic complications developed in 2 patients, one of whom suffered a fatal embolism after accidentally rechallenging with low-dose heparin which was used to maintain the patency of an intravascular catheter. After discontinuation of heparin the thrombocyte count rapidly increased to normal values during treatment with the heparinoid danaparoid (Orgaran^®) without complications.     

Current agents for the treatment of patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Several counterintuitive treatment paradoxes complicate the management of immune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). For example, simple discontinuation of heparin often fails to prevent subsequent HIT-associated thrombosis. Thus, current treatment guidelines recommend substituting heparin with a rapidly acting alternative anticoagulant (eg, danaparoid, lepirudin, or argatroban) even when HIT is suspected on the basis of thrombocytopenia alone ("isolated HIT"). Another paradox-coumarin (warfarin) anticoagulation-can lead to venous limb gangrene in a patient with HIT-associated deep-vein thrombosis. Thus, warfarin is not recommended during acute thrombocytopenia secondary to HIT. However, warfarin can be given as overlapping therapy with an alternative anticoagulant, provided that (1) initiation of warfarin is delayed until substantial platelet count recovery has occurred (to at least above 100 x 10(9)/L); (2) low initial doses of warfarin are used; (3) at least 5 days of overlapping therapy are given; and (4) the alternative agent is maintained until the platelet count has normalized. It has recently been recognized that HIT antibodies are transient and usually do not recur upon subsequent re-exposure to heparin. This leads to a further paradox-patients with previous HIT can be considered for a brief re-exposure to heparin under exceptional circumstances; for example, heart surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass, if HIT antibodies are no longer detectable using sensitive assays. For patients with acute or recent HIT who require urgent heart surgery, other approaches include use of alternative anticoagulants (eg, lepirudin or danaparoid) for cardiopulmonary bypass or antiplatelet agents (eg, tirofiban or epoprostenol) to permit intraoperative use of heparin.     

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: real-world issues

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic drug reaction caused by platelet-activating antibodies. HIT sera often activate platelets without needing heparin-such heparin-"independent" platelet activation can be associated with HIT beginning or worsening despite stopping heparin ("delayed-onset HIT"). We address important issues in HIT diagnosis and therapy, using a recent cohort of HIT patients to illustrate influences of heparin type; triggers for HIT investigation; serological features of heparin-independent platelet activation; and treatment. In our cohort of recent HIT cases ( N?=?13), low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin) was a common causative agent ( N?=?8, 62%); most patients were diagnosed after HIT-thrombosis had occurred; and danaparoid was the most frequently selected treatment. Heparin-independent platelet activation was common (7/13 [54%]) and predicted slower platelet count recovery (>1 week) among evaluable patients (5/5 vs 1/6; P?=?0.015). In our experience with argatroban-treated patients, HIT-associated consumptive coagulopathy confounds anticoagulant monitoring. Our observations provide guidance on practical aspects of HIT diagnosis and management.     

Les thrombocytopénies induites par l’héparine : données récentes

Despite less frequent, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) remains a severe complication of treatment with heparin, and is important to diagnose and manage appropriately. HIT results from an atypical immune response to heparin, with the synthesis of IgG antibodies specific to heparin-modified platelet factor 4 (PF4) which activate platelets, leukocytes and the endothelium. This activation explains that low platelet count is associated with thrombotic events in 50% of patients. The diagnosis of HIT is sometimes evoked because of atypical manifestations (i.e. cutaneous necrosis, amnesia, hypotension or dyspnea following intravenous injection of heparin). Biological assays are always necessary to confirm HIT in case of clinical suspicion, and specific rapid tests are now available for detecting anti-PF4 antibodies. However, their specificity is poor and functional assays such as serotonin release assay or platelet aggregation test are often necessary. Argatroban that is a direct antithrombin drug can be used in patients with severe renal failure and will be preferred to danaparoid sodium in this situation. Fondaparinux is not licensed for treating confirmed HIT and can only be used in case of suspicion. The early detection of HIT is based on the monitoring of platelet count recommended in surgical patients receiving a low molecular weight heparin and in all patients treated with unfractionated heparin.     

La thrombopénie induite par héparine : mise au point

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a serious complication of heparin therapy. It is due to the synthesis of antibodies most often directed against platelet factor 4 (FP4) modified by heparin (H). HIT is manifested by a platelet count fall, associated with a high risk of venous or arterial thrombosis. The diagnosis of HIT is based on the assessment of clinical probability (4Ts score or change in platelet count after cardiac surgery) and the demonstration of heparin-modified anti-FP4 antibodies (FP4/H). If the immunological tests are positive, functional tests should be performed. In case of suspicion of HIT, it is necessary to urgently stop heparin therapy, to perform a doppler ultrasound of the lower limbs, and to prescribe an alternative anticoagulation agent at a curative dose. Currently, danaparoid sodium and argatroban are authorized. The diagnosis and management of HIT remain complex and requires multidisciplinary collaboration.     

Differences in specificity of heparin-dependent antibodies developed in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and consequences on cross-reactivity with danaparoid sodium

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is frequently associated with antibodies (Abs) to heparin–PF4 complexes (H-PF4). In order to investigate whether there are variations in specificity of Abs, we studied 63 samples from patients with suspected HIT. Two groups of samples were separated after comparing their reactivity against H-PF4 or recombinant PF4 (r-PF4) using ELISA. In group Ab1 ( n  = 46), Abs only or mainly bound to H-PF4 complexes and thus most of the epitopes recognized probably involved both heparin and PF4. In group Ab2 ( n  = 17), Abs exhibited similar reactivity to r-PF4 and H-PF4, and the antigens recognized were possibly neoepitopes mainly expressed by modified PF4 and by H-PF4 complexes. Platelet activation tests were positive with 56 samples containing high titres of Abs to H-PF4. Most samples ( n  = 59) contained IgG antibodies, often associated with IgA antibodies which were more frequently found in group Ab2, and/or IgM. With unfractionated heparin treatment, HIT was associated with Ab1 or Ab2 antibodies, whereas only Ab1 antibodies were detected after low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Furthermore, cross-reactivity with danaparoid sodium was present only in group Ab1 and mainly involved LMWH-treated patients.     

Anticoagulant-induced skin necrosis in a patient with hereditary deficiency of protein S

Skin necrosis is a rare but debilitating complication of treatment with vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants such as warfarin. A clinically similar syndrome has been reported less frequently with heparin therapy. We recently managed a thirty-year-old female patient who developed skin necrosis on her left lower extremity while on warfarin for postpartum DVT. The lesions started to develop 48 hr after stopping heparin therapy. Discontinuation of warfarin and reinstitution of heparin was complicated by a rapid decrease in platelet count consistent with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and its associated risk of platelet activation and thrombosis. The diagnosis was supported by the identification of antibodies against heparin/platelet factor 4 complexes in the patient's serum. The platelet count recovered and the patient improved after switching to therapy with the heparinoid danaparoid. Evaluation for a hypercoagulable state revealed a partial deficiency of protein S, a condition that previously was identified in two of her family members. It is not clear if this patient suffered from warfarin-induced skin necrosis, a manifestation of heparin-mediated platelet activation, or a complex condition in which both drugs contributed. HIT may affect 1-3% of patients who receive unfractionated heparin, and this case raises the possibility that heparin may contribute to, or cause, some episodes of skin necrosis attributed to warfarin. Because many patients who develop warfarin-induced skin necrosis have been treated initially with heparin, it would seem prudent to consider HIT in these situations.     

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia-alternative anticoagulation in pregnancy and lactation

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) appears rarely in pregnant patients who are being treated with heparin. When HIT is suspected, heparin treatment should be discontinued and alternative anticoagulation should be started. The heparinoid danaparoid appears to be the drug of choice for acute treatment and prophylaxis because of its low placental permeability. Between the 12th and 36th weeks of pregnancy, either danaparoid may be continued or warfarin may be used after recovery of platelet counts. Before and during delivery, danaparoid should be preferred over warfarin in order to avoid bleeding complications in mother and infant. Hirudin should only be used when either cross-reactivity with heparin-induced antibodies or cutaneous allergy against heparinoids are observed. Postpartum warfarin seems to be the treatment of choice because breast-feeding can be continued. Alternative treatment with either danaparoid or hirudin is possible, but data on treatment with these reagents in lactating mothers are very limited.     

Heparininduzierte Thrombozytopenie

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction that carries an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. HIT is caused by platelet-activating antibodies directed against a complex of platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin. HIT typically manifests in the second week after initiation of heparin therapy with a platelet count reduction of more than 50% of the highest level after the start of heparin administration as well as thromboembolic events. The clinical probability can be calculated by the 4 T’s score. The laboratory diagnosis of HIT is based on confirmation of PF4/heparin antibodies or on functional tests that provide evidence of heparin-dependent platelet-activating antibodies. A low 4 T’s score and negative HIT test virtually rule out the presence of HIT. Patients with acute HIT require anticoagulation with a compatible anticoagulant in a therapeutic dose. The drugs currently available for this include the direct thrombin inhibitors argatroban, lepirudin, bivalirudin, and desirudin and the indirect factor Xa inhibitors danaparoid and fondaparinux.     

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a review

Immune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a relevant adverse drug reaction consisting in a hypercoagulable state caused by an anticoagulant agent. The incidence is approximately 6.5% in patients receiving unfractionated heparin after orthopedic surgery, and is equal to or lower than 1% in other settings. HIT occurrence is a function of heparin type, duration of heparin administration, patient population, and gender. The pathogenesis is due to an antibody response to the complex heparin/platelet factor 4 in most cases, with secondary activation of platelets and coagulation, and finally increased thrombin generation. Thrombocytopenia, venous or arterial thrombosis, heparin-induced skin necrosis, adrenal hemorrhage, and transient amnesia can characterize the clinical course of HIT. Platelet monitoring in patients receiving heparin is indicated to early detect HIT. A thrombotic event can be the first manifestation of HIT. Laboratory demonstration of heparin-dependent platelet activation confirms the clinical diagnosis; antigenic or functional assays are available. Once HIT is highly likely or confirmed serologically, immediate heparin cessation is mandatory and an alternative therapeutic anticoagulant is needed due to the high risk (or the presence) of thrombotic events. The available nonheparin anticoagulants aim to reduce thrombin generation. Lepirudin, argatroban, and bivalirudin (direct thrombin inhibitors) and danaparoid and fondaparinux (factor Xa inhibitors) represent the current treatment options for HIT. Vitamin K antagonists can be used safely only after a stable platelet count has been obtained.     

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: temporal pattern of thrombocytopenia in relation to initial use or reexposure to heparin

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immune-mediated adverse drug reaction associated with a decrease of platelet counts that usually begins after at least 5 days of heparin treatment. Uncertainty exists about the risk of early onset of HIT (ie, < 5 days) in relation to previous heparin exposure. We therefore analyzed the temporal pattern of thrombocytopenia in patients with laboratory-confirmed HIT to assess whether patients with previous heparin exposure have an increased risk of early onset of HIT. DESIGN: Platelet count patterns in patients with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of HIT were examined in a retrospective chart review of a clinical study database. The onset of thrombocytopenia < 100 x 10(9)/L associated with the current heparin treatment (mainly unfractionated heparin) was analyzed using nonparametric maximum likelihood estimation. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients with 125 treatment episodes were assessed: HIT developed in 79 patients during initial exposure to heparin, and in 46 patients during reexposure. Early onset (< 5 days) of thrombocytopenia was associated with very recent heparin exposure. Patients reexposed to heparin within 3 months had an earlier onset of thrombocytopenia as compared to patients reexposed to heparin after 3 months (4.9 +/- 4.4 days vs 11.5 +/- 5.5 days [mean +/- SD], p = 0.001). There was no difference between onset on thrombocytopenia < 100 x 10(9)/L in patients reexposed to heparin within 3 to 12 months and after 1 year (9.7 +/- 6.4 days vs 12.3 +/- 5.2 days, p = 0.41). Whether platelet counts were obtained daily or less regularly did not affect the analysis. CONCLUSION: Early onset of thrombocytopenia in HIT is associated with recent heparin treatment (< 3 months). In contrast, for patients who did not receive heparin within the previous 3 months, HIT is an unlikely explanation for thrombocytopenia that occurs within the first 5 days.     

A case of pulmonary embolism due to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia after the placement of hepatic arterial infusion catheter

A 68-year-old woman developed acute pulmonary embolism after hepatic arterial infusion therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Because the platelet count was significantly reduced, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) due to heparin usage in hepatic arterial infusion therapy was clinically suspected. Subsequently, the patient tested positively for HIT antibodies, and a definitive diagnosis was obtained. Antithrombotic therapy with heparin was discontinued and treatment with argatroban was started. After the heparinized hydrophilic catheter was removed, the platelet count improved immediately. HIT should be considered when a decrease in platelet count and thrombosis are involved with the usage of heparin.     

The management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

The Haemostasis and Thrombosis Task Force of the British Committee for Standards in Haematology has produced a concise practical guideline to highlight the key issues in the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) for the practicing physician in the UK. The guideline is evidence-based and levels of evidence are included in the body of the article. All patients who are to receive heparin of any sort should have a platelet count on the day of starting treatment. For patients who have been exposed to heparin in the last 100 d, a baseline platelet count and a platelet count 24 h after starting heparin should be obtained. For all patients receiving unfractionated heparin (UFH), alternate day platelet counts should be performed from days 4 to 14. For surgical and medical patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) platelet counts should be performed every 2-4 d from days 4 to 14. Obstetric patients receiving treatment doses of LMWH should have platelet counts performed every 2-4 d from days 4 to 14. Obstetric patients receiving prophylactic LMWH are at low risk and do not need routine platelet monitoring. If the platelet count falls by 50% or more, or falls below the laboratory normal range and/or the patient develops new thrombosis or skin allergy between days 4 and 14 of heparin administration HIT should be considered and a clinical assessment made. If the pretest probability of HIT is high, heparin should be stopped and an alternative anticoagulant started at full dosage unless there are significant contraindications while laboratory tests are performed. Platelet activation assays using washed platelets have a higher sensitivity than platelet aggregation assays but are technically demanding and their use should be restricted to laboratories experienced in the technique. Non-expert laboratories should use an antigen-based assay of high sensitivity. Only IgG class antibodies need to be measured. Useful information is gained by reporting the actual optical density, inhibition by high concentrations of heparin, and the cut-off value for a positive test rather than simply reporting the test as positive or negative. In making a diagnosis of HIT the clinician's estimate of the pretest probability of HIT together with the type of assay used and its quantitative result (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA, only) should be used to determine the overall probability of HIT. Clinical decisions should be made following consideration of the risks and benefits of treatment with an alternative anticoagulant. For patients with strongly suspected or confirmed HIT, heparin should be stopped and full-dose anticoagulation with an alternative, such as lepirudin or danaparoid, commenced (in the absence of a significant contraindication). Warfarin should not be used until the platelet count has recovered. When introduced in combination with warfarin, an alternative anticoagulant must be continued until the International Normalised Ratio (INR) is therapeutic for two consecutive days. Platelets should not be given for prophylaxis. Lepirudin, at doses adjusted to achieve an activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) ratio of 1.5-2.5, reduces the risk of reaching the composite endpoint of limb amputation, death or new thrombosis in patients with HIT and HIT with thrombosis (HITT). The risk of major haemorrhage is directly related to the APTT ratio, lepirudin levels and serum creatinine levels. The patient's renal function needs to be taken into careful consideration before treatment with lepirudin is commenced. Severe anaphylaxis occurs rarely in recipients of lepirudin and is more common in previously exposed patients. Danaparoid in a high-dose regimen is equivalent to lepirudin in the treatment of HIT and HITT. Danaparoid at prophylactic doses is not recommended for the treatment of HIT or HITT. Patients with previous HIT who are antibody negative (usually so after >100 d) who require cardiac surgery should receive intraoperative UFH in preference to other anticoagulants that are less validated for this purpose. Pre- and postoperative anticoagulation should be with an anticoagulant other than UFH or LMWH. Patients with recent or active HIT should have the need for surgery reviewed and delayed until the patient is antibody negative if possible. They should then proceed as above. If deemed appropriate early surgery should be carried out with an alternative anticoagulant. We recommend discussion of these complex cases requiring surgery with an experienced centre. The diagnosis must be clearly recorded in the patient's medical record.     

Beneficial effect of exogenous platelet factor 4 for detecting pathogenic heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia antibodies

The laboratory diagnosis of heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is based on an enzyme immunoassay combined with a functional test, and serotonin release assay (SRA) is the gold standard for detecting activating HIT antibodies. However, a recent atypical history of HIT prompted us to evaluate whether addition of platelet factor 4 (PF4) during SRA could improve its ability to detect pathogenic HIT antibodies. Using 5B9, a monoclonal antibody to PF4/H with a human Fc fragment, we first defined the optimal PF4 concentration for detecting low amounts of platelet‐activating IgG with SRA. Plasma samples from 50 patients with suspected HIT were then studied, and SRA was positive in 17 cases (Group SRA^pos), with relatively high levels of PF4‐specific IgG (median optical density = 2·66). SRA was also systematically performed after adding 10 μg/ml of PF4 in the reaction mixture, and significant serotonin release was measured with samples from 9 additional patients (Group PF4‐SRA^pos). Importantly, levels of PF4‐specific IgG were similar in these samples and those from the 24 persistently SRA negative patients. Moreover, the pre‐test probability of HIT was intermediate/high in all ‘SRA^pos’ or ‘SRA‐PF4^pos’ patients. In conclusion, addition of exogenous PF4 might improve the detection of pathogenic HIT antibodies by SRA.     

Cerebral venous thrombosis due to essential thrombocythemia and worsened by heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis

This case describes the medical history of a 61-year-old woman treated for cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) leading to diagnosis of essential thrombocythemia (ET). During treatment with unfractionated heparin, after initial improvement of clinical state, signs of cerebral hypertension reappeared. Although the platelet count decreased, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) was only suspected 2 days later when it dropped below the standard 150?×?10⁹?L^?1 threshold. HIT diagnosis was confirmed by the presence of anti-PF4/heparin IgG. This late finding was the cause of the extension of CVT with worsening of cerebral hypertension necessitating decompressive craniectomy. Elevated basal platelet count due to ET can delay diagnosis and treatment of HIT. In this case, physicians should be more attentive to platelet count variations rather than thrombocytopenia threshold.     

Laboratory diagnosis of heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia

Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a clinical‐pathological disorder; thus, laboratory testing for the pathogenic platelet‐activating antiplatelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies is central for diagnosis. The “iceberg” model summarizes the inter‐relationship between platelet activation assays and PF4‐dependent immunoassays, with platelet‐activating antibodies comprising a subset of anti‐PF4/heparin antibodies. The platelet serotonin‐release assay (SRA), performed by reference laboratories, has high sensitivity and specificity for HIT (~95% each), and is especially suited for detecting highly pathogenic HIT sera containing both heparin‐dependent and heparin‐independent platelet‐activating antibodies; this latter subgroup of antibodies explains “autoimmune HIT” disorders (delayed‐onset, persisting, spontaneous, heparin “flush,” fondaparinux‐associated). Recently, SRA‐negative HIT has become recognized, in which serum from some HIT patients contains subthreshold levels of platelet‐activating antibodies (by SRA) that become detectable using a PF4‐enhanced platelet activation assay. Unusual immunologic features of HIT include early antibody detectability (at onset of platelet count fall) and antibody transience (seroreversion). Widely available PF4‐dependent enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) have high sensitivity but poor specificity for HIT, although specificity is enhanced with IgG‐specific EIAs and strong positive results; unfortunately, EIA results are usually not available in real time. Automated rapid immunoassays, such as the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA), facilitate real‐time laboratory diagnosis. Recently available likelihood ratio (LR) data for positive (LR+) and negative (LR?) test results allow clinicians to adjust their pretest probabilities for HIT, using Bayesian analysis, into real‐time posttest probabilities that are dramatically increased (test positive) or decreased (test negative). Moreover, (semi‐)quantitative CLIA‐ and LIA‐positive results (weak, moderate, strong positive) can further refine the posttest probability of HIT.     

Danaparoid for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: an analysis of treatment failures

BACKGROUND: Patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) (with or without thrombosis) require alternative anticoagulation because of their extreme risk of new thromboembolic complications. The first effective agent for this purpose may be danaparoid, a less-sulfated low molecular weight heparinoid. Recently, direct thrombin inhibitors have been used. OBJECTIVE: Five HIT patients, who developed new thromboembolic complications while receiving danaparoid, were analyzed to consider possible reasons for treatment failure and to promulgate strategies that improve efficacy. RESULTS: Three patients had acute HIT, one had recent HIT, and one with remote HIT was re-exposed to heparin during heart surgery. Danaparoid was started as intravenous bolus and infusion in one patient, and as 1250 units subcutaneously twice daily in four patients. The new complications that emerged on danaparoid were new venous thrombi in three patients (one with pulmonary emboli), lower extremity arterial thrombosis in one, myocardial ischemia in one, thromboembolic cardiovascular accidents in one, and fatal bowel necrosis in one (two patients suffered more than one complication). Platelet counts did not improve or worsened in four, improved partially in the other, and parameters of disseminated intravascular coagulation failed to improve in one patient. Four patients responded relatively dramatically when direct thrombin inhibitors were substituted. Possible reasons for danaparoid failure include that: 1) no treatment is expected to completely prevent complications, 2) antithrombin III consumption can blunt efficacy in some patients, 3) low or intermediate doses may be insufficient, and 4) there was clinically significant cross-reactivity of the pathogenic HIT antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: It is emphasized that the possibility of clinically significant antibody cross-reactivity and that low or intermediate dosage may be inadequate when using danaparoid in therapy of HIT. The latter problem probably extrapolates to other anticoagulants used for HIT.     

Acute adrenal insufficiency associated with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Although the thrombotic risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (HIT) is well recognized and may affect any vascular bed, the involvement of adrenal veins has been less commonly described. We report the case of a 86-year-old woman who developed bilateral massive adrenal haematoma associated with HIT, resulting in acute adrenal insufficiency. After immediate discontinuation of heparin and starting therapy with danaparoid and hydrocortisone, the clinical evolution was favourable, although adrenal failure was irreversible. When abdominal pain, hypotension and fever occur during heparin therapy, associated with a drop in platelet count, acute adrenal insufficiency secondary to HIT should be considered, as early diagnosis is essential for the treatment of this life-threatening complication.     

Higher optical density of an antigen assay predicts thrombosis in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Objectives: To correlate optical density and percent inhibition of a two‐step heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) antigen assay with thrombosis; the assay utilizes reaction inhibition characteristics of a high heparin concentration. Patients and Methods: Patients with more than 50% decrease in platelet count or thrombocytopenia (<150 × 10⁹/L) after exposure to heparin, who had a positive two‐step antigen assay [optical density (OD) >0.4 and >50 inhibition with high concentration of heparin] were included in the study. Results: Forty of 94 HIT patients had thrombosis at diagnosis; 54/94 had isolated‐HIT without thrombosis. Eight of the isolated‐HIT patients developed thrombosis within the next 30 d; thus, a total of 48 patients had thrombosis at day 30. At diagnosis there was no significant difference in OD between HIT patients with thrombosis and those with isolated‐HIT. However, OD was significantly higher in all patients with thrombosis (n = 48, 1.34 ± 0.89), including isolated‐HIT patients who later developed thrombosis within 30 d (n = 8, 1.84 ± 0.64) as compared to isolated‐HIT patients who did not develop thrombosis (0.96 ± 0.75; P = 0.011 and P = 0.008). The Receiver Operative Characteristic Curve showed that OD >1.27 in the isolated‐HIT group had a significantly higher chance of developing thrombosis by day 30. None of these groups showed significant difference in percent inhibition. Multivariate analysis showed a 2.8‐fold increased risk of thrombosis in females. Similarly, thrombotic risk increased with age and OD values. Conclusion: Higher OD is associated with significant risk of subsequent thrombosis in patients with isolated‐HIT; percent inhibition, however, was not predictive.