Accuracy of Diagnosing Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia.

Larsen, Emil List; Nilius, Henning; Studt, Jan-Dirk; Tsakiris, Dimitrios A; Greinacher, Andreas; Mendez, Adriana; Schmidt, Adrian; Wuillemin, Walter A; Gerber, Bernhard; Vishnu, Prakash; Graf, Lukas; Kremer Hovinga, Johanna A; Goetze, Jens P; Bakchoul, Tamam; Nagler, Michael (2024). Accuracy of Diagnosing Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia. JAMA Network Open, 7(3) American Medical Association 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3786

Preview

Text larsen_2024_oi_240165_1710778707.79012.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (1MB) | Preview

IMPORTANCE

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a life-threatening condition that requires urgent diagnostic clarification. However, knowledge of the diagnostic utility of the recommended diagnostic tests is limited in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current diagnostic practice for managing the suspicion of HIT.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This prospective diagnostic study was conducted from January 2018 to May 2021 among consecutive patients with suspected HIT from 11 study centers in Switzerland, Germany, and the United States. Detailed clinical data and laboratory information were recorded. Platelet factor 4/heparin antibodies were quantified using an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA). A washed-platelet heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA) test was used as a reference standard to define HIT.

EXPOSURES

Suspicion of HIT.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the 4Ts score, the CLIA, and the recommended algorithm serially combining both tests.

RESULTS

Of 1448 patients included between 2018 and 2021, 1318 were available for the current analysis (median [IQR] age, 67 [57-75] years; 849 [64.6%] male). HIPA was positive in 111 patients (prevalence, 8.4%). The most frequent setting was intensive care unit (487 [37.0%]) or cardiovascular surgery (434 [33.0%]). The 4Ts score was low risk in 625 patients (46.8%). By 2 × 2 table, the numbers of patients with false-negative results were 10 (9.0%; 4Ts score), 5 (4.5%; CLIA), and 15 (13.5%; recommended diagnostic algorithm). The numbers of patients with false-positive results were 592 (49.0%; 4Ts score), 73 (6.0%; CLIA), and 50 (4.1%; recommended diagnostic algorithm), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this diagnostic study of patients suspected of having HIT, when the recommended diagnostic algorithm was used in clinical practice, antibody testing was required in half the patients. A substantial number of patients were, however, still misclassified, which could lead to delayed diagnosis or overtreatment. Development of improved diagnostic algorithms for HIT diagnosis should be pursued.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

0 since deposited on 27 Mar 2024
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item