4.4 Article

Apixaban Anticoagulation in Children and Young Adults Supported With the HeartMate 3 Ventricular Assist Device

期刊

ASAIO JOURNAL
卷 69, 期 6, 页码 E267-E269

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001889

关键词

anticoagulation; apixaban; HeartMate 3; pediatrics; ventricular assist device

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the use of apixaban anticoagulation in pediatric and young adult patients on HM3 VAD, with a focus on safety and effectiveness. The results show that apixaban, paired with level-based dosing regimen and low-dose aspirin, provides safe and effective antithrombosis.
There is a growing population of pediatric and adult patients supported with the HeartMate 3 ventricular assist device (HM3 VAD) all of whom require anticoagulation. Apixaban is an anticoagulant requiring less testing than warfarin which has been shown to be effective in other indications. We report five pediatric and young adult patients managed on HM3 VAD with apixaban anticoagulation for 1589 days of VAD support between January 6, 2019 and January 7, 2022. The median age was 17 years and the weight was 69 kg. Four patients had congenital heart disease (2 single-ventricle Fontan circulation, and 2 biventricular circulations) and one had dilated cardiomyopathy. Apixaban was initiated at a median of 7 days postoperatively and doses were titrated based on peak apixaban-specific anti-Xa chromogenic analysis levels (goal 150-250 ng/ml). All patients received aspirin 81 mg daily. There was one major hemocompatibility-related event observed (outflow graft thrombus in the setting of medication nonadherence and chronic VAD infection); there was no major bleeding, death, or stroke. Three patients underwent heart transplantation and two remain on VAD support. In this limited series, apixaban paired with a level-based dosing regimen and low-dose aspirin provided safe and effective antithrombosis with only one hemocompatibility-related event related to medication non-adherence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据