ABSTRACT
Although some suggest anti-Xa assays should be the preferred method for monitoring intravenous unfractionated heparin therapy, which method is best is unknown owing to the lack of large randomized controlled trials correlating different assays with clinical outcomes. This article provides an overview of heparin monitoring and the pros, cons, and clinical applications of anti-Xa assays.
- Copyright © 2019 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
- Erika Hutt Centeno, MD⇑
- Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
- Clinical Instructor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
- ADDRESS:
Erika Hutt Centeno, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, G10, Cleveland Clinic; 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195; huttcee{at}ccf.org
- Marcelo P. Gomes, MD
ABSTRACT
Although some suggest anti-Xa assays should be the preferred method for monitoring intravenous unfractionated heparin therapy, which method is best is unknown owing to the lack of large randomized controlled trials correlating different assays with clinical outcomes. This article provides an overview of heparin monitoring and the pros, cons, and clinical applications of anti-Xa assays.
- Copyright © 2019 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
Jump to section
- Article
- ABSTRACT
- UNFRACTIONATED HEPARIN AND WARFARIN ARE STILL WIDELY USED
- UNFRACTIONATED HEPARIN’S EFFECT IS UNPREDICTABLE
- MONITORING UNFRACTIONATED HEPARIN IMPROVES OUTCOMES
- THE aPTT REFLECTS THROMBIN INHIBITION
- HEPARIN ASSAYS MEASURE UNFRACTIONATED HEPARIN ACTIVITY
- ANTI-Xa ASSAY VS THE aPTT
- CLINICAL APPLICABILITY OF THE ANTI-Xa ASSAY
- LIMITATIONS OF ANTI-Xa ASSAYS
- ANTI-Xa ASSAYS AND LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT HEPARINS
- ANTI-Xa ASSAYS IN PATIENTS RECEIVING DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS
- REFERENCES
- Figures & Data
- Info & Metrics