Heparin-induced Platelet Activation Test Research Articles

The potential impact of Covid-19 on the capacity of routine laboratory tests to detect heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

In Covid-19, anticoagulation with heparin is often administered to prevent or treat thromboembolic events. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a severe complication of heparin treatment, caused by heparin-dependent, platelet activating anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies. Diagnosis of HIT is based on the combination of clinical parameters, allowing to determine the pretest probability, and laboratory testing for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies and confirmatory functional assays, such as the heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA) test.We report the case of a patient with severe Covid-19 pneumonia requiring ECMO treatment, who developed recurrent clotting of the ECMO filter and a drop in platelet count under heparin treatment. He was therefore suspected to have HIT and the anticoagulation was switched to argatroban. Despite high clinical probability and high titres of anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, the functional HIPA test was negative. Nevertheless, argatroban was continued rather than to reinstate anticoagulation with heparin. Reevaluation 7 days later then demonstrated a strongly positive functional HIPA test and confirmed the diagnosis of HIT. Under anticoagulation with argatroban the patient gradually improved and was finally weaned off the ECMO.In conclusion, this case highlights the critical importance of clinical judgement, exploiting the 4 T score, given that Covid-19 patients may present a different pattern of routine laboratory test results in HIT diagnostics. The possibility of a false negative HIPA test has to be considered, particularly in early phases of presentation. In cases of a discrepancy with high clinical probability of HIT and/or high titre anti-PF4/heparin antibodies despite a negative HIPA test, a reevaluation within 3 to 5 days after the initial test should be considered in order to avoid precipitant reestablishment of unfractionated heparin, with potentially fatal consequences.

Detection of Platelet-Activating Antibodies Associated with Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia by Flow Cytometry: An Italian Experience.

Rare cases of thrombocytopenia and thrombosis after anti-COVID-19 adenovirus-associated mRNA vaccines (VITT) due to platelet-activating anti-platelet-factor 4 (PF4)/polyanion antibodies have been reported. VITT laboratory diagnosis, similarly to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) diagnosis, requires immunoassays for anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies identification, such as ELISA assays and platelet-activating functional tests, such as heparin-induced platelet activation test (HIPA), to confirm their pathogenicity. We compared the flow cytometry (FC) measurement of platelet p-selectin exposure to the gold standard functional test HIPA for diagnosis confirmation in 13 patients with a clinical VITT syndrome (6M/7F; median age 56 (33–78)) who resulted positive to anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies ELISA assays (12/13). FC and HIPA similarly identified three different patterns: (1) a typical non-heparin-dependent VITT pattern (seven and six patients by FC and HIPA, respectively); (2) low/no platelet activation in patients under IvIg therapy (five out of five and two out of four patients by FC and HIPA, respectively); (3) a HIT pattern. Antibodies investigated by FC became negative after 7, 17, and 24 days of therapy in three patients. FC measurement of P-selectin exposure was as sensitive as HIPA but simpler to detect anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies in VITT patients. FC could reliably discriminate VITT from HIT, thus helping for the choice of the anticoagulant.

Heparin-induced Thrombocytopenia Diagnosis: A Retrospective Study Comparing Heparin-induced Platelet Activation Test to 14 C-serotonin Release Assay.

Laboratory confirmation of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is of crucial importance and remains challenging and relies on platelet functional assays highlighting the presence of heparin-dependent platelet-activating antibodies in patient serum or plasma. Platelet functional assays using washed platelets include the 14 C-serotonin release assay (SRA), usually described as the gold standard, and the heparin-induced platelet activation assay (HIPA). Since its first comparison with SRA there has been no additional published study regarding HIPA diagnostic performances compared with SRA. Aim of our retrospective study was to compare the concordance between HIPA and SRA in HIT suspected-patients with positive anti-PF4/heparin antibodies between October 2010 and October 2015. Fifty-five HIT-suspected patients who beneficiated from both HIPA and SRA were included. Positive and negative percent agreements were 83.8% (95% CI 68.0–93.8%) and 66.7% (95% CI 41.0–86.7%), respectively. Overall percent agreement was 78.2% (95% CI 65.0–92.2%). Agreement was higher in patients who underwent cardiopulmonary bypass with extracorporeal circulation circuit for cardiac surgery. We also confirm that the use of a minimum of 2 platelet donors to establish positive HIT diagnosis and 4 platelet donors to exclude HIT diagnosis allows obtaining a good agreement with SRA. Although HIPA and SRA were performed with different platelet donors and in different laboratories, HIPA had a good positive agreement with SRA for HIT diagnosis, showing that HIPA is a useful functional assay that does not require radioactivity and could be developed worldwide to improve HIT diagnosis.

Accuracy of the functional, flow cytometer-based Emo-Test HIT Confirm® for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

Rapid functional assays have been proposed to overcome the limitations of washed platelet assays in the work-up of patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Data on the diagnostic accuracy are, however, scarce and conflicting. We aimed to study the diagnostic accuracy of a rapid, flow cytometer-based assay and to explore sources of variability. Frozen serum samples of 103 consecutive patients, evaluated for suspected HIT at our institution in 2017, and characterized with 4Ts score, IgG-PF4/heparin ELISA (GTI), HemosIL®Acustar (IgG), as well as heparin-induced platelet activation test (HIPA), were further tested using HIT Confirm, determining P-selectin release of donor platelets after incubation with patient's serum. The diagnosis of HIT was defined as a positive HIPA result. HIT was confirmed in 15 out of 103 patients corresponding to a prevalence of 14.6%. HIT Confirm was positive in 11 patients (10.7%), negative in 88 patients (85.4%), and inconclusive in 4 patients (3.9%). According to the intention-to-diagnose principle, the number of true positives was 9, the number of true negatives 83, the number of false negatives was 6, the number of false positives 5. This corresponds to a sensitivity of 60.0%, and a specificity of 94.3%. Modifications of the test did not improve sensitivity. The rapid, flow cytometer-based assay HIT Confirm is able to verify HIT in positive patient samples but cannot rule-out HIT in clinical practice. Other rapid functional assays shall be studies in appropriately designed diagnostic accuracy studies.

Accuracy of heparin-induced platelet aggregation test for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

IntroductionWhereas the utility of washed platelet assays such as the heparin-induced platelet activation test (HIPA) for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is regarded as high, the performance of simpler assays such as the heparin-induced platelet aggregation test (PAT) is still elusive. Using well-characterized samples of a large cohort study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PAT for the diagnosis of HIT. Material and methodsOne-hundred twenty-two immunoassay-positive serum samples of a previous, prospective single-center cohort study including consecutive patients with suspected HIT (n = 1291) were used. HIPA was determined as reference gold standard; samples were previously analyzed using PAT as well as polyspecific platelet factor 4/heparin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). 4Ts score was calculated using the patient documentation. Diagnosis of HIT was defined as a positive HIPA, which is a positive reaction in 2 out of 4 donor platelets within 30 min. ResultsHIT was diagnosed in 39 out of 122 patients corresponding to a prevalence of 32%. Median optical density (ELISA) was 2.8 (inter-quartile range 2.3, 3.0) in patients with HIT and 0.7 (0.5, 1.3) in patients without HIT. PAT was positive in 27 out of 39 HIT patients and it was negative in 83 out of 83 HIT-negative patients. Thus, the sensitivity of PAT for the diagnosis of HIT was 69% (95% confidence interval 52%, 83%) and the specificity 100% (96%, 100%). ConclusionsOur results demonstrate that PAT is a valuable test to confirm HIT but cannot be applied to rule-out HIT in clinical practice.

Characterization of hospitalized cardiovascular patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Little is known about heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), a pro-thrombotic, potentially life-threatening immune-mediated reaction to heparin exposure, in conservative and interventional cardiovascular medicine. The 4T score, validated for prediction of HIT in surgical patients before, is also suitable for assessing HIT probability in cardiovascular patients with unclear thrombocytopenia. A total of 403 consecutive patients from our Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Pneumology in whom a HIT screening test was performed between 2009 and 2016 were identified. All 72 patients with a positive screening test were subjected to a functional confirmation test (heparin-induced platelet activation test, HIPA), resulting in 23 patients with serologically confirmed HIT (positive screening test, positive HIPA) and 49 patients with nonconfirmed HIT (positive screening test, negative HIPA). The 4TScore had a sensitivity of 82.6% and a specificity of 28.6% in our patients, suggesting that it might not sufficiently predict the clinical probability of HIT in cardiovascular patients. In both confirmed and nonconfirmed HIT, intrahospital mortality was high without a significant difference (30% in confirmed HIT vs 43% in nonconfirmed HIT). Bacteremia was more often found in patients with nonconfirmed HIT, suggesting infection as a frequent differential diagnosis of thrombocytopenia in these patients (49% vs 17%, P = 0.0185). HIT screening should be initiated in cardiovascular patients with unclear thrombocytopenia despite a low 4Tscore in order to distinguish patients requiring alternative anticoagulants from those with other causes such as infections. Further research is needed to specify the risk profile for HIT in cardiovascular patients.

The transfusion‐related acute lung injury controversy: lessons from heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia

The transfusion‐related acute lung injury controversy: lessons from heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia

Outcomes After Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Patients With Propaten Vascular Grafts

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) can result in a life- or limb-threatening condition that can be reversed with early detection and prompt discontinuation of systemic heparin. The advent of heparin-bonded grafts may introduce a new level of complexity in some patients with a suspected diagnosis of HIT. This review evaluates the outcomes of patients who received the Gore Propaten vascular graft with a subsequent suspicion of HIT. This is a retrospective analysis of cases with suspected type II HIT after implant of the Propaten vascular graft that were reported to W.L. Gore & Associates. Data reviewed included clinical studies, including physician-sponsored studies, both inside and outside the United States; published literature; and Gore's product surveillance records. Overall, as of June 2011, there have been 27 cases (27 patients and 30 vascular grafts) of suspected HIT after graft implant. Of these 27 patients, 18 were tested for HIT antibodies (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, heparin-induced platelet activation test, serotonin release assay, drug-induced platelet activation test, platelet aggregation test, an HIT panel, or an unknown HIT test), with a positive test result in 17 of the 18 cases. In 5 of the 18 cases, patients were tested with two distinct HIT assays, resulting in one positive and one negative test. Among patients with available data, the mean preoperative heparin dose was 4850 ± 1634 U, and four patients had a postoperative heparin drip. The mean preoperative platelet count was 227,000 ± 71,616. Mean platelet count at time of diagnosis of HIT was 53,429 ± 36,832. For the majority of those patients known to have had heparin discontinued once HIT was suspected, Argatroban was the anticoagulant of choice. Sixteen patients had grafts that remained implanted and in circulation, eight patients had grafts that were explanted, two patients had grafts that were ligated in situ, and the outcome was unknown for one patient. Among the 16 patients with grafts remaining in circulation, four grafts required thrombectomy for occlusion. Two patients died, one other patient had a remote thrombotic event, and the remaining patients had no reported adverse events. Among the 10 patients with graft removal or ligation, six had a graft occlusion, four required an amputation, and two died. Among the cases in which the recovery of platelet count was reported after systemic heparin was discontinued, the majority were cases in which the grafts were left in circulation. Analysis of the cases of suspected HIT in patients with implanted Propaten vascular grafts reveals that the HIT observed appears to be related to the systemic administration of heparin. After discontinuation of systemic heparin, platelet counts normalized in the presence of patent Propaten vascular grafts. Hence, based on current data, our recommendation would be to tailor treatment to individual patients. Functioning grafts in patients with or without thrombotic events and return of platelet count to normal values may not require grafts to be explanted in the presence of HIT.

Combined use of the high heparin step and optical density to optimize diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of an anti-PF4/heparin enzyme-immunoassay

Background IgG-specific anti-PF4/heparin enzyme-immunoassays (EIAs) are sensitive but not specific for platelet-activating antibodies, the cause of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Two features of EIA reactivity predict for presence of HIT antibodies - the magnitude of a positive result (in optical density [OD] units) and the inhibition of reactivity at high heparin concentrations - but their combined utility remains uncertain. Objective To determine for an IgG-specific EIA how the OD values of a positive reaction and its inhibition by high heparin can be optimally combined. Methods We screened 1,000 consecutive patients with suspected HIT using an IgG-specific PF4/heparin in-house EIA with and without high heparin (100 IU/mL); and by the heparin-induced platelet activation test. Results Platelet-activating antibodies were rarely detected (< 0.2%) when the IgG-specific EIA was negative at the conventional cut-off (OD, 0.5). However, an OD cut-off of 1.0 resulted in an unacceptable loss of sensitivity (14/83 = 17%) for detecting platelet-activating antibodies. The high heparin step increased specificity for platelet-activating antibodies from 72% to 89% without loss of sensitivity when applied to weak-positive sera (OD ≤ 1.0). However, decreased sensitivity was observed with strong-positive sera (OD > 1.0): 11/69 such sera (16%) that did not show > 40% inhibition by high heparin nevertheless contained platelet-activating antibodies. Conclusion Specificity of an IgG-specific EIA for detecting platelet-activating antibodies can be optimized by applying the high heparin inhibition step to weak-positive reactions (0.5- ≤ 1.0 OD). However, applying the high heparin inhibition step to strong-positive reactions (> 1.0 OD) in our in-house assay risks falsely classifying a serum as negative for platelet-activating antibodies.

Perioperative thrombocytopenia in cardiac surgical patients — incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, morbidities and mortality

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a life-threatening complication of heparin therapy. At our institution, postoperative cardiac surgical patients are screened for HIT antibodies, when platelet counts persist to be less than 50% of the baseline level or less than 50000 nl(-1). In the present study, we compared the outcomes in HIT-antibody-positive and HIT-antibody-negative patients. Patients who underwent a cardiac surgical procedure between 1999 and 2007 and in whom a clinical suspicion of HIT prompted a test for heparin-dependent platelet-activating antibodies, that is, the heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA) test, were retrieved from the database. Patients were divided in group 1 (antibodies present) and group 2 (no antibodies present). In 153 of more than 10000 patients (1.5%), a HIPA test was performed, Of those, 21 patients tested positive (group 1) and 132 tested negative (group 2). Central venous and pulmonary thrombo-embolism was more frequent in group 1 (10% vs 2%, p=0.04). Intestinal, microvascular thrombo-embolism was more frequent in group 2 (15% as opposed to 0%, p=0.03). By multivariate analysis, only patient age (p=0.04, confidence interval (CI): 1.04 (1.00-1.08)), female sex (p=0.03 CI 3.45 (1.51-7.86)) and perioperative sepsis (p<0.001 CI 6.88 (2.96-16.02)) were associated with mortality. Patients in whom a low platelet count prompted testing for HIT antibodies, had a high mortality (59%), independent of whether heparin-dependent antibodies were present, indicating that a persistently lowered platelet count is a bad prognostic sign after cardiac surgery. Interestingly, the HIPA-positive patients had more central venous and pulmonary embolisms. Patient age, female sex and perioperative sepsis were risk factors for perioperative mortality.

HIT Happens: Diagnosing and Evaluating the Patient with Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

HIT Happens: Diagnosing and Evaluating the Patient with Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

A potential of autologous pericardium for a sustained-release carrier of vancomycin: A pilot study in vitro

tensive care patients. Crit Care Med 2007;35:1165-76. 3. Zwicker JI, Uhl L, Huang WY, Shaz BH, Bauer KA. Thrombosis and ELISA optical density values in hospitalized patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. J Thromb Haemost 2004;2:2133-7. 4. Pouplard C, Gueret P, Fouassier M, Ternisien C, Trossaert M, Regina S, et al. Prospective evaluation of the ‘4Ts’ score and particle gel immunoassay specific to heparin/PF4 for the diagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. J Thromb Haemost 2007;5:1373-9. 5. Eichler P, Budde U, Haas S, Kroll H, Loreth RM, Meyer O, et al. First workshop for detection of heparin-induced antibodies: validation of the heparin-induced plateletactivation test (HIPA) in comparison with a PF4/heparin ELISA. Thromb Haemost 1999;81:625-9. Brief Communications

A Prospective Study on the Incidence and Clinical Relevance of Heparin-Induced Antibodies in Patients after Vascular Surgery

The heparin-platelet factor 4-antibody assay, polyanion-platelet factor 4-antibody assay and heparin-induced platelet activation test are used for laboratory diagnosis of the immune form of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Fifty consecutive patients receiving heparin treatment for more than 5 days after vascular surgery were prospectively screened for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia antibodies, thrombocytopenia (daily platelet counts), deep-vein thrombosis (color-coded duplex sonography), and arterial reocclusion (clinical assessment). None of the patients developed thrombocytopenia or thrombosis in association with formation of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia antibodies. Despite the absence of clinical evidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, many patients formed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia antibodies: 34% of the patients were positive in the heparin-platelet factor 4-antibody assay, 28% in the polyanion-platelet factor 4-antibody assay, 14% in the heparin-induced platelet activation test, and 54% with any of these tests. Patients predominantly developed IgM (24%) and IgA antibodies (16%), whereas IgG antibodies were found in 12% of patients. Whereas the majority of patients with positive ELISA assays had IgM and IgA antibodies, patients with a positive functional assay (heparin-induced platelet activation test) predominantly had IgG antibodies. We conclude that a high percentage of patients develop heparin-induced antibodies after vascular surgery without any clinical symptoms of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. None of the assays therefore is predictive of the clinical manifestation of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in asymptomatic patients. Therefore, the diagnostic specificity of both antigen and activation assays for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia appears to be relatively low in the vascular surgery patient population.

Association of heparin-induced skin lesions, intracutaneous tests, and heparin-induced IgG.

Cutaneous heparin-induced allergic reactions to subcutaneous heparin may begin 2-5 days after administration. The relation of the delayed-type hypersensitivity and a systemic immunologic response is controversial. The present investigation aimed to analyze the occurrence of thromboembolic complication, pathologic heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA), and the presence of circulating heparin-induced IgG in patients with heparin-induced skin reactions. Intracutaneous tests, HIPA assay, and heparin-heparin IgG antibodies were performed in nine patients with heparin-induced skin lesions. Six of eight patients showed positive intracutaneous tests to heparin and to four low-molecular-weight heparins. Three of six heparin-positive patients presented hypersensitivity to a heparinoid, too. Two of three patients had a positive HIPA test and elevated heparin-induced IgG antibodies. Both patients developed complications presenting as heparin-induced skin necrosis or arterial thrombosis. Two of nine patients were treated with danaparoid, 4/9 patients received r-hirudin, and 1/9 received oral coumarin. In 2/9 patients, anticoagulant therapy was stopped, but these patients will receive r-hirudin if indicated. On the basis of the coincidence of local and systemic hyperreactivity to heparin and danaparoid, patients with heparin-induced skin lesions should receive r-hirudin, a nonheparin compound, for anticoagulant treatment.

First Workshop for Detection of Heparin-induced Antibodies: Validation of the Heparin-induced Platelet-activation Test (HIPA) in Comparison with a PF4/Heparin ELISA

No data exist regarding the inter-laboratory reproducibility of the heparin-induced-platelet-activation (HIPA) test, the most widely used functional assay in Germany for the detection of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) antibodies. Nine laboratories used an identical protocol to test eight different sera with the HIPA test. Five laboratories also tested the sera with a platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin-complex ELISA. Cross-reactivity with danaparoid-sodium was assessed using 0.2 aFXa units instead of heparin in the HIPA test. Two of nine laboratories had no discrepant HIPA test results. Four laboratories differed in one sample, one reported two discrepant results, and two laboratories reported more than two discrepant results. Cross-reactivity with danaparoid-sodium test results differed among laboratories. PF4/heparin ELISA results were identical in all five laboratories. The HIPA test requires strict quality control measures. Using both a sensitive functional assay (HIPA test) and a PF4/heparin ELISA will allow detection of antibodies directed to antigens other than PF4/heparin complexes as well as detection of IgM and IgA antibodies with PF4/heparin specificity.

Heparin induced thrombocytopenia

Thrombocytopenia is a known adverse reaction occurring in some of the patients receiving heparin. Two types of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) have been described. HIT type I is mild thrombocytopenia probably caused by a direct proaggregating effect of heparin and occurs during the first few days of heparin treatment. No specific treatment is necessary. HIT type II is a severe thrombocytopenia mediated by an immunologic mechanism where antibodies against heparin/platelet factor 4 (PF4) complexes play a major role. Thrombocytopenia usually commences 4-14 days after the onset of heparin administration. The incidence of HIT type II is below 3% and even lower when low-molecular weight heparin is used. The possible occurrence of life-threatening thrombembolic events may complicate the course of HIT type II. Diagnosis of HIT type II by clinical features alone is often difficult. A few laboratory tests are pertinent for diagnosing HIT type II including the 14C-serotonin assay, the heparin-induced platelet activation test and the heparin/PF4 ELISA. Immediate cessation of heparin administration is essential in the treatment of patients with HIT type II, if need be even without waiting for the result of the antibody search test. Several alternatives of anticoagulation for patients with HIT type II have been investigated in the past. Danaparoid-sodium as well as recombinant hirudin have shown promising results when used for this purpose.

Platelet response to vascular surgery—A preliminary study on the effect of aspirin and heparin

Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) demonstrate high cardiovascular mortality, which is further increased after arterial reconstruction. Enhanced platelet reactivity has been postulated for these patients. The effect of surgery and of periprocedural aspirin and heparin therapy on platelet reactivity was assessed with the Stagnation Point Flow Adhesio-Aggregometer (SPAA). The platelet adhesivity and aggregability of 44 PAD patients was quantitated perioperatively. Aspirin was administered during the entire course, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) preoperatively and as of the fourth postoperative (pOP) day and unfractionated heparin (UH) upon surgery and three days thereafter. A group of 15 aspirin-free general surgical patients receiving LMWH and with no evidence of PAD served as controls. Plasma fibrinogen levels and platelet count were determined. The heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA) assay for detection of heparin-associated thrombocytopenia (HAT) antibodies was also performed. Baseline values of SPAA-measured platelet reactivity (p < 0.001) and plasma fibrinogen (p < 0.01) were higher for patients as compared to controls and increased markedly after surgery. In the PAD group maximum platelet activation and fibrinogen levels coincided with a marked drop in platelet count and were concomitant to administration of unfractionated heparin. Thereby, a drop in platelet count of > 30% was observed in 25 patients (57%). The HIPA test verified HAT antibodies in 3 (12%) of these patients, two of which suffered postoperative thrombosis. In the control group significant pOP increases were noted only for plasma fibrinogen. Changes in platelet count and reactivity were minimal and nonsignificant. No thrombosis occurred and no HAT antibodies were detected. In PAD patients, concurrent to pathologically enhanced baseline platelet function, surgical intervention resulted in a further increase in platelet reactivity in spite of aspirin therapy. UH may have promoted this hyperreactivity, as indicated by the concomitant decrease in platelet count with the coincidence of postoperative thrombosis and the presence of HAT antibodies. In the absence of PAD platelets participate insignificantly in the pOP acute phase reaction hallmarked by an increase in plasma fibrinogen.