Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices are used for patients with severe cardiac or respiratory failure; however, these patients are at high risk for clotting and bleeding. The best method to monitor heparin in these patients has not been established. Objective: To determine the risks for bleeding and clotting while monitoring heparin with either anti-Xa or activated clotting time (ACT) in tMCS patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on tMCS patients who received heparin adjusted according to an anti-Xa or ACT protocol. The primary outcome was incidence of major bleeding. Pertinent secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome, clotting events, and time to therapeutic range. Results: There were 103 patients included in the study: 53 in the ACT group and 50 in the anti-Xa group. Overall, there were 30 (56.6%) patients with major bleeding in the ACT group, compared with 16 (32%) patients in the anti-Xa group ( P = 0.017). An anti-Xa–based protocol was associated with a decreased hazard of major bleeding (hazard ratio = 0.388 [0.215-0.701]; P = 0.002) in the univariate analysis. In the multivariable analysis, an anti-Xa protocol remained associated with a significantly lower hazard of bleeding. Findings were similar when broken down into more discrete subgroups of the entire cohort, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation life support (ECMO), and non-ECMO groups. Conclusion and Relevance: Anti-Xa monitoring was associated with a lower hazard of bleeding during tMCS compared to an ACT-based protocol. Further studies should evaluate if anti-Xa monitoring should be preferentially used in tMCS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.