Abstract
Objectives
Chromogenic anti-activated factor X (FXa) assays are currently the “gold standard” for monitoring indirect anticoagulants. However, anti-FXa has been shown to vary according to the choice of reagents. In the present study, the performance of anti-FXa measurement was evaluated in order to gain more insight into the clinical applications. Furthermore, the longitudinal coefficient of variation (CV) was studied to investigate whether there is improvement over time.
Methods
Laboratory tests results were evaluated for samples spiked with unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH), fondaparinux and danaparoid sodium. External quality assessment (EQA) data from multiple years were used from more than 100 laboratories.
Results
Comparison of the results for all methods showed significant differences in measured values between the frequently used methods (ANOVA: p < 0.001). The largest differences were observed for LMWH and UFH measurements. These differences may be caused by differences in method composition, such as the addition of dextran sulphate. Substantial interlaboratory variation in anti-FXa monitoring was observed for all parameters, particularly at low concentrations. Our results showed that below 0.35 IU/mL, the CVs for UFH and LMWH increase dramatically and results below this limit should be used with caution.
Conclusions
Our study demonstrates that the choice of the anti-FXa method is particularly important for UFH and LMWH measurement. The variation in measurements may have an effect on clinical implications, such as therapeutic ranges. Furthermore, the longitudinal EQA data demonstrated a constant performance and, in at least 50% of the cases, improvement in the CV% of the anti-Xa results over time.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. P. Tsiamyrtzis for his statistical support.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
References
1. Garcia DA, Baglin TP, Weitz JI, Samama MM. Parenteral anticoagulants: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141:e24S–43S.10.1378/chest.11-2291Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
2. Harenberg J. Is laboratory monitoring of low-molecular-weight heparin therapy necessary? Yes. J Thromb Haemost 2004;2:547–50.10.1111/j.1538-7933.2004.00647.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Bounameaux H, de Moerloose P. Is laboratory monitoring of low-molecular-weight heparin therapy necessary? No. J Thromb Haemost 2004;2:551–4.10.1111/j.1538-7933.2004.00648.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Shojania AM. More on: is laboratory monitoring of low-molecular-weight heparin necessary? J Thromb Haemost 2004;2:2276–7.10.1111/j.1538-7836.2004.00988.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Bates SM, Greer IA, Middeldorp S, Veenstra DL, Prabulos AM, Vandvik PO. VTE, thrombophilia, antithrombotic therapy, and pregnancy: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141:e691S–736S.10.1378/chest.11-2300Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
6. Monagle P, Chan AK, Goldenberg NA, Ichord RN, Journeycake JM, Nowak-Gottl U, et al. Antithrombotic therapy in neonates and children: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141:e737S–801S.10.1378/chest.11-2308Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. Babin JL, Traylor KL, Witt DM. Laboratory monitoring of low-molecular-weight heparin and fondaparinux. Semin Thromb Hemost 2017;43:261–9.10.1055/s-0036-1581129Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Linkins LA, Dans AL, Moores LK, Bona R, Davidson BL, Schulman S, et al. Treatment and prevention of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141:e495S–530S.10.1378/chest.11-2303Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. Ignjatovic V, Summerhayes R, Gan A, Than J, Chan A, Cochrane A, et al. Monitoring unfractionated heparin (UFH) therapy: which Anti-Factor Xa assay is appropriate? Thromb Res 2007;120:347–51.10.1016/j.thromres.2006.10.006Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Kitchen S, Theaker J, Preston FE. Monitoring unfractionated heparin therapy: relationship between eight anti-Xa assays and a protamine titration assay. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2000;11:137–44.10.1097/00001721-200011020-00004Search in Google Scholar
11. Kovacs MJ, Keeney M, MacKinnon K, Boyle E. Three different chromogenic methods do not give equivalent anti-Xa levels for patients on therapeutic low molecular weight heparin (dalteparin) or unfractionated heparin. Clin Lab Haematol 1999;21:55–60.10.1046/j.1365-2257.1999.00183.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Kitchen S, Iampietro R, Woolley AM, Preston FE. Anti Xa monitoring during treatment with low molecular weight heparin or danaparoid: inter-assay variability. Thromb Haemost 1999;82:1289–93.10.1055/s-0037-1614377Search in Google Scholar
13. Harris LF, O’Brien A, Castro-Lopez V, O’Donnell JS, Killard AJ. Comparison of the anticoagulant response of a novel fluorogenic anti-FXa assay with two commercial anti-FXa chromogenic assays. Thromb Res 2011;128:e166–70.10.1016/j.thromres.2011.08.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Favaloro EJ, Bonar R, Aboud M, Low J, Sioufi J, Wheeler M, et al. How useful is the monitoring of (low molecular weight) heparin therapy by anti-Xa assay? A laboratory perspective. Lab Hematol 2005;11:157–62.10.1532/LH96.05028Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Cuker A, Raby A, Moffat KA, Flynn G, Crowther MA. Interlaboratory variation in heparin monitoring: lessons from the quality management program of Ontario coagulation surveys. Thromb Haemost 2010;104:837–44.10.1160/TH10-02-0099Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Bonar RA, Favaloro EJ, Marsden K. External quality assurance for heparin monitoring. Semin Thromb Hemost 2012;38:632–9.10.1055/s-0032-1321954Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. ISO13528:2015. Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons.Search in Google Scholar
18. Buttner J. The need for accuracy in laboratory medicine. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1995;33:981–8.Search in Google Scholar
19. Teoh KH, Young E, Bradley CA, Hirsh J. Heparin binding proteins. Contribution to heparin rebound after cardiopulmonary bypass. Circulation 1993;88:II420–5.Search in Google Scholar
20. Lyon SG, Lasser EC, Stein R. Modification of an amidolytic heparin assay to express protein-bound heparin and to correct for the effect of antithrombin III concentration. Thromb Haemost 1987;58:884–7.10.1055/s-0038-1646008Search in Google Scholar
21. Gehrie E, Laposata M. Test of the month: the chromogenic antifactor Xa assay. Am J Hematol 2012;87:194–6.10.1002/ajh.22222Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Favaloro EJ, Bonar R, Sioufi J, Wheeler M, Low J, Aboud M, et al. An international survey of current practice in the laboratory assessment of anticoagulant therapy with heparin. Pathology 2005;37:234–8.10.1080/00313020500098900Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Greene LA, Law C, Jung M, Walton S, Ignjatovic V, Monagle P, et al. Lack of anti-factor Xa assay standardization results in significant low molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) dose variation in neonates and children. J Thromb Haemost 2014;12:1554–7.10.1111/jth.12641Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Jennings I, Kitchen D, Kitchen S, Woods T, Walker I. The importance of commutability in material used for quality control purposes. Int J Lab Hematol 2019;41:39–45.10.1111/ijlh.12918Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
