Thrombosis Research
Volume 125, Issue 6 , Pages 538-544, June 2010

Comparison of monitoring methods for lepirudin: Impact of warfarin and lupus anticoagulant

  • Birgitta Salmela

      Affiliations

    • Coagulation Disorders, Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Finland
  • ,
  • Lotta Joutsi-Korhonen

      Affiliations

    • HUSLAB Laboratory Services, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
  • ,
  • Ellen Saarela

      Affiliations

    • HUSLAB Laboratory Services, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
  • ,
  • Riitta Lassila

      Affiliations

    • Coagulation Disorders, Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Finland
    • HUSLAB Laboratory Services, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Coagulation Disorders, Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Helsinki University Central Hospital, P.O. Box 340, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland. Tel.: +358 40 517 5547; fax: +358 9 471 74504.

Received 23 November 2009; received in revised form 1 February 2010; accepted 2 February 2010. published online 25 February 2010.

Abstract 

Introduction

Appropriate monitoring methods are needed for lepirudin, a direct thrombin inhibitor, as activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) may under- or overestimate lepirudin. We compared APTT with thrombin-specific methods, also in the presence of warfarin and lupus anticoagulant (LA).

Materials and Methods

Lepirudin i.v. was assessed in five patients (35 samples) and in vitro spiked plasma pools: normal control and plasma containing warfarin and LA. Wide dose-responses to lepirudin (0–4.0µg/ml) were studied with APTT (Actin FSL®), Ecarin Chromogenic Assay (ECA®), chromogenic Anti-Factor IIa (Anti-FIIa, Hirudin Activity Assay®), Prothrombinase-induced Clotting Time (PiCT®), and plasma diluted Thrombin Time (dTT).

Results

APTT both under- and overestimated in vivo lepirudin doses according to ECA® and Anti-FIIa, which matched completely in various plasma pools at all lepirudin doses (r=0.99). APTT and PiCT® underestimated high lepirudin concentrations in normal plasma, and in LA-positive plasma they were invalid. In all plasma pools, dTT (1:16) indicated lepirudin well up to 1.0μg/ml.

Conclusions

ECA® or Anti-FIIa are preferable for lepirudin monitoring, because neither warfarin nor LA, interfered with them, and they were the most precise methods even for supratherapeutic doses. PiCT® reflected co-inhibition of FIIa and FXa, but was disturbed, like APTT, by LA and high lepirudin. Further experience of laboratory monitoring is valuable in this era of new anticoagulants.

Abbreviations: APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time, LA, lupus anticoagulant, ECA®, ecarin chromogenic assay, Anti-FIIa, chromogenic Anti-Factor IIa assay, PiCT®, prothrombinase-induced clotting time, dTT, plasma diluted thrombin time, DTI, direct thrombin inhibitor, HIT, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, CPB, cardiopulmonary bypass surgery, INR, international normalized ratio, AT, antithrombin

Keywords: Direct thrombin inhibitor, Ecarin, Hirudin, Lupus anticoagulant, Oral anticoagulant

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0049-3848(10)00129-5

doi:10.1016/j.thromres.2010.02.002

Thrombosis Research
Volume 125, Issue 6 , Pages 538-544, June 2010