Challenges in Variation and Responsiveness of Unfractionated Heparin

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) has been in clinical use for more than half a century. Despite its undoubted contribution to the treatment and prevention of thrombosis, heparin is significantly limited by its variable biochemical composition and unpredictable pharmacokinetics. The situation is compounded by the fact that methods for monitoring heparin do not necessarily reflect its therapeutic effect. The activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is a method for monitoring heparin therapy that is simple, cheap, and readily available. However, it is also poorly standardized and is affected by numerous factors—both analytic and preanalytic—that are unrelated to the heparin effect. Establishing an appropriate therapeutic range for the aPTT is challenging for smaller clinical laboratories, and the antifactor Xa method of measuring heparin levels is not widely available. The College of American Pathologists published consensus guidelines in an effort to improve the laboratory monitoring of UFH therapy. However, it seems unlikely that the laboratory problems associated with monitoring UFH will be resolved. Unfractionated heparin is highly antigenic and carries a significant risk of heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Even in the absence of thrombocytopenia or thrombosis, the presence of heparin‐associated antibodies may predict adverse clinical outcomes and strengthen the rationale for the ultimate replacement of UFH. Fortunately, alternatives to UFH, such as low‐molecular‐weight heparins, direct thrombin inhibitors, and more specific factor Xa inhibitors, are becoming available for clinical use. The pharmacokinetics of these agents are more predictable and rely much less on laboratory monitoring. Nonheparin agents also eliminate the risk of HIT. The emergence of these newer anticoagulants makes the continued use of UFH increasingly difficult to justify.