We read with interest the manuscript titled “Failure of Crotalidae Immune F(ab’)2 Equine Antivenom to Achieve Control in a Southern Pacific Rattlesnake Envenomation” by Levine et al. The authors indicate that their patient “failed to respond adequately to F(ab’)2AV” because his initially unmeasurable platelet count reached a maximum of 102,000/μL at 56 hours after envenomation. We have several concerns with this conclusion. Adequate platelet response in the setting of venom-induced hemotoxicity is not universally defined. Although some patients may have complete reversal of thrombocytopenia after a single antivenom dose, others may have increasing platelet numbers but never achieve a platelet count of >150,000/μL. A 2011 study by Yin et al1Yin S. Kokko J. Lavonas E. et al.Factors associated with difficulty achieving initial control with crotalidae polyvalent immune fab antivenom in snakebite patients.Acad Emerg Med. 2011; 18: 46-52Crossref PubMed Scopus (21) Google Scholar suggested that it “may not be reasonable to attempt to completely control” thrombocytopenia. Antivenom may have been underdosed initially. F(ab’)2AV is dosed at 10 vials over 1 hour and repeated hourly until initial control is obtained, as evidenced by the halt of proximal swelling and improvement in laboratory markers. However, as above, there is no consensus on specific numeric goals.2Anavip [Package Insert]. Franklin, TN: Rare Disease Therapeutics, Inc.Google Scholar Although the patient received 10 vials initially, his next dose approximately 1 to 2 hours later was only 4 vials. He received the remaining 6 vials after approximately 9 hours. His platelet count continued to increase. The trend suggests that earlier administration may have prevented persistent thrombocytopenia. After viper envenomation, platelets may be sequestered, pro- and anti-aggregated, and destroyed through multiple mechanisms, leading to recurrent or refractory thrombocytopenia, which is difficult to predict in the absence of routine venomic studies on individual patients. This inability to reliably predict the mechanism of thrombocytopenia results in the inability to predict platelet response to antivenom.3Shen C. Liu M. Mackeigan D.T. et al.Viper venoms drive the macrophages and hepatocytes to sequester and clear platelets: novel mechanism and therapeutic strategy for venom-induced thrombocytopenia.Arch Toxicol. 2021; 95: 3589-3599Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar,4De Queiroz M.R. de Sousa B.B. da Cunha Pereira D.F. et al.The role of platelets in hemostasis and the effects of snake venom toxins on platelet function.Toxicon. 2017; 133: 33-47Crossref PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar Owing to platelet sequestration and aggregation, antivenom should quickly reverse thrombocytopenia. However, with platelet destruction or consumption, levels would not increase until the patient could synthesize more platelets de novo. This patient may have had ongoing platelet consumption to repair venom-induced tissue damage, yet the authors did not describe the progression of cytotoxicity. The lack of fibrinogen trend also makes the inference of ongoing venom effect problematic. Rattlesnake antivenom is best suited not to resolve thrombocytopenia but to reverse defibrination, so the significance of persistent thrombocytopenia in the absence of fibrinogen levels is unclear.5Dudley S. Smelski G. Massey D.J. et al.Fashionably late: A characterization of late coagulopathies in rattlesnake envenomations between Fab and F (ab’) 2 antivenoms.Toxicon. 2022; 212: 49-54Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar Twenty-three years of unpublished data from the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center shows that persistent thrombocytopenia after antivenom is common regardless of which of the two commercially available antivenoms is used (FabAV or F[ab’]2AV). Considering cases with thrombocytopenia during initial hospital stay, 197 of 556 (35.43%) FabAV patients and 39 of 107 (36.45%) F(ab’)2AV patients were discharged with a platelet count of < 150,000/μL. Some patients did not develop thrombocytopenia until after discharge. Among FabAV patients, 106 of 472 (22.46%) developed delayed thrombocytopenia compared with only 7 of 130 (5.38%) F(ab’)2AV patients. Similar rates of persistent thrombocytopenia in the inpatient setting suggest that destruction of platelets occurs in some patients regardless of antivenom manufacturer. The difference in delayed thrombocytopenia suggests that the longer half-life of F(ab’)2AV continues to protect against thrombocytopenia compared with FabAV. Finally, the authors did not provide an illustration of the patient’s overall clinical picture throughout his hospital stay, including progression of edema, pain, and coagulation factors. Isolated thrombocytopenia is not an indication to provide more antivenom as bleeding due to thrombocytopenia is unlikely if there is no defibrination. A patient with stabilization of other indicators, despite persistent thrombocytopenia, has had an adequate response to antivenom. As always in medicine, treat the patient, not the number.