Anti‐factor Xa (anti‐Xa) monitoring of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is associated with less time to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation compared to the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). However, it is unknown whether clinical outcomes differ between these methods of monitoring. The aim of this research was to compare the rate of venous thrombosis and bleeding events in patients that received UFH monitored by anti‐Xa compared to the aPTT. A retrospective review of electronic health records identified adult patients that received UFH given intravenously (IV) for ≥2 days, with either anti‐Xa or aPTT monitoring at an academic tertiary care hospital. This was a pre/post study design conducted between January 1 to December 30, 2014 (aPTT), and January 1 to December 30, 2016 (anti‐Xa). All UFH adjustments were based on institutional nomograms. The primary outcome was venous thrombosis and the secondary outcome was bleeding, both of which occurred between UFH administration and discharge from the index hospitalization. A total of 2500 patients were in the anti‐Xa group and 2847 patients aPTT group. Venous thrombosis occurred in 10.2% vs 10.8% of patients in the anti‐Xa and aPTT groups, respectively (P = .49). Bleeding occurred in 33.7% vs 33.6% of patients in the anti‐Xa and aPTT groups, respectively (P = .94). Anti‐Xa monitoring was not an independent predictor of either outcome in multivariate logistic regression analyses. Our study found no difference in clinical outcomes between anti‐Xa and aPTT‐based monitoring of UFH IV.

Current immunosuppressive regimens with calcineurin inhibitors have improved the management of patients after transplantation. However, their adverse effects are linked to increased morbidity and limit the long-term survival of heart and lung transplant recipients. Belatacept, a costimulation inhibitor interfering with the interaction between CD28 on T cells and the B7 ligands on antigen presenting cells, has shown success and is currently approved for use in renal transplant recipients. Furthermore, it lacks many of the cardiovascular, metabolic, neurologic, and renal adverse of effects of calcineurin inhibitors that have the largest impact on long-term survival in cardiothoracic transplant. Additionally, it requires no therapeutic drug monitoring and is only administered once a month. Limitations to belatacept use have been observed that must be considered when comparing immunosuppression options. Despite this, maintenance immunosuppression with belatacept has the potential to improve outcomes in cardiothoracic transplant recipients, as it has with kidney transplant recipients. However, no large clinical trials investigating belatacept for maintenance immunosuppression in heart and lung transplant recipients exist. There is a large need for focused research of belatacept in cardiothoracic transplantation. Belatacept is a viable treatment option for maintenance immunosuppression, and it is reasonable to pursue more evidence in cardiothoracic transplant recipients.

No abstract