Skip to main content
Hematology Reports logoLink to Hematology Reports
. 2015 Nov 23;7(4):5844. doi: 10.4081/hr.2015.5844

The Anti-Factor Xa Range For Low Molecular Weight Heparin Thromboprophylaxis

Matthew Y Wei 1,, Salena M Ward 1
PMCID: PMC4691677  PMID: 26733269

Abstract

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are now the mainstay option in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. In some patients receiving therapeutic doses of LMWH, activity can be measured by quantifying the presence of Anti-factor Xa (AFXa) for dose adjustment. However, currently there are no guidelines for LMWH monitoring in patients on thromboprophylactic, doses, despite certain patient populations may be at risk of suboptimal dosing. This review found that while the AFXa ranges for therapeutic levels of LMWHs are relatively well defined in the literature, prophylactic ranges are much less clear, thus making it difficult to interpret current research data. From the studies published to date, we concluded that a reasonable AFXa target range for LMWH deep venous thromboses prophylaxis might be 0.2-0.5 IU/mL.

Key words: Low molecular weight heparin, venous thromboembolism, anti-factor Xa

Introduction

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) have now largely replaced unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) due to ease of administration and a more predictable pharmacokinetic profile.1,2 However, certain patient demographics were not included in the early randomized trials of LMWHs which demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the recommended dose regimens. These groups are the obese [Body Mass Index (BMI)>50 kg/m2], pregnant and renally impaired (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min) patient populations.3-5 For this reason, it has been recommended to monitor the activity of Anti-factor Xa (AFXa) for dosage adjustment purposes in these patients receiving a therapeutic LMWH.1-4,6,7 Currently, there are no guidelines to monitor LMWH in patients on thromboprophylactic doses. In adult patients, the standard fixed dosing schedule is applied to all patients with no recommendation to monitor the AFXa activity. However, several studies have suggested that a standard dose may not achieve optimal thromboprophylaxis in certain patient groups.4,8-13 While the AFXa ranges for therapeutic levels of LMWHs are relatively well defined in the literature, prophylactic ranges are much less clear. The aim of this review is to evaluate the current data on AFXa target levels in particular in patients receiving thromboprophylactic doses of LMWH.

Anti-factor Xa assays

LMWH predominantly acts on Factor Xa, unlike UFH which exerts its effect on both Factor II and Factor Xa. For this reason, LMWH activity is monitored using serum AFXa levels instead of activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT). The Peak AFXa level is reached 3-5 hours after administration. Most laboratories use a chromogenic based assay.1,5,14

In this assay, a defined quantity of AFXa is added to the patient’s plasma and the residual AFXa is measured using a chromogenic substrate. This is then quantified using a standard reference curve constructed using known amounts of AFXa.14,15

Therapeutic anti-factor Xa ranges

Target AFXa ranges for therapeutic doses of LMWHs have been relatively well defined in previous studies.1,4,5,16-18 For twice daily and once daily dosing of subcutaneous enoxaparin, peak AFXa levels of between 0.6-1.0 IU/mL and 1.0-2.0 IU/mL have been suggested respectively.1,4,16 It has been proposed that ranges between LMWHs may be sufficiently similar to aim for a standardized target range.17 However, there are significant differences in target levels between various LMWHs at therapeutic doses (Table 1).

Table 1.

Target anti-factor Xa ranges of therapeutic low molecular weight heparins (LMWH).

LMWH Target anti-factor Xa, IU/mL
Twice daily Once daily
Enoxaparin1,4,16 0.6-1.0 1.0-2.0
Dalteparin5,18 - 0.5-1.5
Nadroparin1,4,16 0.6-1.0 1.3
Tinzaparin1,4,16 - 0.85

Prophylactic anti-factor Xa ranges

A target AFXa range for prophylactic doses of LMWH is not well defined due to a lack of supporting evidence.4-6 In 1991, Leyvraz et al.19 demonstrated non-inferiority between LMWH and UFH for thromboprophylaxis in post-operative orthopedic patients. Mean peak AFXa levels measured on Day 1, 3, 4 and 10 were 0.29, 0.25, 0.33 and 0.37 IU/mL respectively. In acutely ill medical patients, average AFXa levels at Day 10 were 0.21 and 0.41 when 20 mg and 40 mg enoxaparin daily were administered respectively.20 The prophylactic range is defined to be between 0.2-0.5 IU/mL by Weitz,21 although the reference cited only reported therapeutic AFXa levels.16 In the review by Nutescu et al., a target range of 0.2-0.4 IU/mL is suggested, based on the authors’ own clinical experience.3 Similarly, several other studies utilized different ranges in various patient groups without supporting data (Table 2).3,4,19-26

Table 2.

Target anti-factor Xa ranges of prophylactic low molecular weight heparins.

Study Target AFXa Patient group
Leyvraz (1991)19 Mean AFXa; day 1: 0.29 IU/mL; day 3: 0.25 IU/mL; day 4: 0.33 IU/mL; day 10: 0.37 IU/mL Orthopaedic
Desjardins (2004)20 Day 10 mean AFXa; 0.21 IU/mL (enoxaparin 20 mg daily); 0.41 IU/mL (enoxaparin 40 mg daily) Medical
Weitz (2009)21
Lim (2010)4
0.2-0.5 IU/mL All
Micromedex. DRUGDEX26 0.2-0.6 IU/mL All
Nutescu (2009)3 0.2-0.4 IU/mL All
Nohe (1999)23 0.2-0.4 IU/mL Pediatric
Fox (2008)24
Pettila (1999)22 0.2-0.4 IU/mL Pregnancy
Bates (2014)25 0.2-0.6 IU/mL Pregnancy

Are prophylactic anti-factor Xa levels necessary?

As the standard fixed dosing of LMWH is considered safe in most adult patients (including pregnant women and patients with mild and moderate renal impairment), in general AFXa assays are not performed.1,2,27,28 Furthermore, there is disagreement in the literature as to the clinical relevance of AFXa levels in patients receiving LMWH thromboprophylaxis.16,29,30

Several early studies, including large randomized trials, suggested that the correlation between clinical thromboembolic or bleeding events and AFXa levels is negligible or absent in surgical patients post-operatively.31,32 In contrast, Levine et al. demonstrated a strong correlation between AFXa levels and deep venous thromboses (DVT) in post-operative orthopedic patients receiving enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis.33

Some studies identified a negative correlation between AFXa levels and increasing BMI and body weight.34,35 This was disputed by the MEDENOX and PREVENT trials which investigated the enoxaparin and dalteparin thromboprophylaxis respectively and demonstrated no significant difference in efficacy between obese and non-obese patients.36,37

However, more recently it has been suggested that fixed dosing of LMWH for thromboprophylaxis may not be adequate in certain patient populations. Morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery (BMI>35 kg/m2) may be one of the groups at risk of under dosing, and has been a topic of contention in the literature.3,4,6,10-13

Some studies recommended the use of higher doses and extended regimens of LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in these patients based upon data from AFXa levels and clinical end-points.11-13,38-40 Differing target AFXa ranges were utilized in the various studies (Table 3).11-13,41-43 This lack of a well-defined prophylactic range has made it difficult to interpret research data in this area.

Table 3.

Target anti-factor Xa ranges for thromboprophylaxis in bariatric patients.

Study Target AFXa, IU/mL Low molecular weight heparin
Simoneau (2008)13 0.2-0.5 Dalteparin
Rowan (2008)11 0.18-0.44 Enoxaparin
Simone (2008)43 0.18-0.44 Enoxaparin
Imberti (2009)41 0.1-0.4 Parnaparin
Borkgren-Okonek (2008)42 0.2-0.4 Enoxaparin

Despite limited evidence is available in this field, the guidelines issued by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) suggest the use of increased doses of LMWH perioperatively for bariatric patients.9

AFXa monitoring and dose adjustment are recommended in patients with high-risk trauma and burns, who may be at risk of subtherapeutic thromboprophylaxis.8,44,45 This approach has been shown to also decrease VTE in trauma patients.8 Critically ill patients on inotropes may be inadequately treated with standard prophylactic dosages of LMWH, hypothesized to be due to an impaired peripheral circulation in that patient population.46

Conclusions

While monitoring of prophylactic AFXa levels may not be needed in the majority of patients, it may still be required in certain patient groups to optimize treatment. Due to a lack of data, the AFXa for prophylactic dosages of LMWH has not been clearly defined, and there seems to be different reference ranges used in the literature.

A standardized prophylactic AFXa range would make data from future studies in this area more comparable, and potentially improve the management of thromboprophylaxis in certain patients.

On the basis of the studies published to date, we can conclude that a reasonable AFXa target range for LMWH DVT prophylaxis may be 0.2-0.5 IU/mL, however, prospective studies are required to validate this recommendation.

References

  • 1.Hirsh J, Warkentin TE, Shaughnessy SG, et al. Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin: mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, dosing, monitoring, efficacy, and safety. Chest 2001;119:64S-94S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Geerts WH, Bergqvist D, Pineo GF, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008;133:381S-453S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nutescu EA, Spinler SA, Wittkowsky A, Dager WE. Low-molecular-weight heparins in renal impairment and obesity: available evidence and clinical practice recommendations across medical and surgical settings. Ann Pharmacother 2009;43:1064-83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lim W. Using low molecular weight heparin in special patient populations. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2010;29:233-40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Barras M. Anti-Xa assays. Australian Prescriber 2013;36:4. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Freeman AL, Pendleton RC, Rondina MT. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in obesity. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2010;8:1711-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bazinet A, Almanric K, Brunet C, et al. Dosage of enoxaparin among obese and renal impairment patients. Thromb Res 2005;116:41-50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Droege ME, Mueller EW, Besl KM, et al. Effect of a dalteparin prophylaxis protocol using anti-factor Xa concentrations on venous thromboembolism in high-risk trauma patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014;76:450-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hirsh J, Bauer KA, Donati MB, et al. Parenteral anticoagulants: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008;133:141S-590S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rondina MT, Wheeler M, Rodgers GM, et al. Weight-based dosing of enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in morbidly obese, medically-Ill patients. Thromb Res 2010;125:220-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rowan BO, Kuhl DA, Lee MD, et al. Anti-Xa levels in bariatric surgery patients receiving prophylactic enoxaparin. Obes Surg 2008;18:162-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Scholten DJ, Hoedema RM, Scholten SE. A comparison of two different prophylactic dose regimens of low molecular weight heparin in bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 2002;12:19-24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Simoneau MD, Vachon A, Picard F. Effect of prophylactic dalteparin on anti-factor Xa levels in morbidly obese patients after bariatric surgery. Obes Surg 2010;20:487-91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gehrie E, Laposata M. Test of the month: the chromogenic antifactor Xa assay. Am J Hematol 2012;87:194-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bates SM, Weitz JI. Coagulation assays. Circulation 2005;112:e53-60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Boneu B, de Moerloose P. How and when to monitor a patient treated with low molecular weight heparin. Semin Thromb Hemost 2001;27:519-22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Laposata M, Green D, Van Cott EM, et al. College of American Pathologists Conference XXXI on laboratory monitoring of anticoagulant therapy: the clinical use and laboratory monitoring of low-molecular-weight heparin, danaparoid, hirudin and related compounds, and argatroban. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122:799-807. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pfizer. Dalteparin product information. Available from: http://www.pfizer.com.au/fragmin. Accessed on: June 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Leyvraz PF, Bachmann F, Hoek J, et al. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after hip replacement: randomised comparison between unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparin. BMJ 1991;303:543-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Desjardins L, Bara L, Boutitie F, et al. Correlation of plasma coagulation parameters with thromboprophylaxis, patient characteristics, and outcome in the MEDE-NOX study. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:519-26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Weitz JI. Antithrombotic drugs. 5th ed. Philadelpha: Churchill Livingstone; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pettila V, Kaaja R, Leinonen P, et al. Thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (dalteparin) in pregnancy. Thromb Res 1999;96:275-82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nohe N, Flemmer A, Rumler R, et al. The low molecular weight heparin dalteparin for prophylaxis and therapy of thrombosis in childhood: a report on 48 cases. Eur J Pediatr 1999;158:S134-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fox NS, Laughon SK, Bender SD, et al. Anti-factor Xa plasma levels in pregnant women receiving low molecular weight heparin thromboprophylaxis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:884-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bates SM, Greer IA, Middeldorp S, et al. VTE, thrombophilia, antithrombotic therapy, and pregnancy: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis. 9th ed. American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141:691S-736S. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Micromedex Solutions. Enoxaparin. Available from: www.micromedexsolutions.com/micromedex2/librarian. Accessed on: July 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rabbat CG, Cook DJ, Crowther MA, et al. Dalteparin thromboprophylaxis for critically ill medical-surgical patients with renal insufficiency. J Crit Care 2005;20:357-63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Greer IA, Nelson-Piercy C. Low-molecular-weight heparins for thromboprophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in pregnancy: a systematic review of safety and efficacy. Blood 2005;106:401-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Harenberg J. Is laboratory monitoring of low-molecular-weight heparin therapy necessary? Yes. J Thromb Haemost 2004;2:547-50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Boneu B, Faruel-Bille V, Pierrejean D, Gabaig AM. Limitations of the chronometric assays to determine plasma antifactor Xa activity during low molecular weight heparin therapy. Nouv Rev Fr Hematol 1991;33:287-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Leizorovicz A, Bara L, Samama MM, Haugh MC. Factor Xa inhibition: correlation between the plasma levels of anti-Xa activity and occurrence of thrombosis and haemorrhage. Haemostasis 1993;23:89-98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bara L, Leizorovicz A, Picolet H, Samama M. Correlation between anti-Xa and occurrence of thrombosis and haemorrhage in post-surgical patients treated with either Logiparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin. Post-surgery Logiparin Study Group. Thromb Res 1992;65:641-50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Levine MN, Planes A, Hirsh J, et al. The relationship between anti-factor Xa level and clinical outcome in patients receiving enoxaparine low molecular weight heparin to prevent deep vein thrombosis after hip replacement. Thromb Haemost 1989;62:940-4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jimenez D, Diaz G, Iglesias A, et al. [Anti-factor Xa activity of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in nonsurgical patients is dependent on body mass]. Arch Bronconeumol 2008;44:660-3. [Article in Spanish]. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Frederiksen SG, Hedenbro JL, Norgren L. Enoxaparin effect depends on body-weight and current doses may be inadequate in obese patients. Br J Surg 2003;90:547-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kucher N, Leizorovicz A, Vaitkus PT, et al. Efficacy and safety of fixed low-dose dalteparin in preventing venous thromboembolism among obese or elderly hospitalized patients: a subgroup analysis of the PREVENT trial. Arch Intern Med 2005;165: 341-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Alikhan R, Cohen AT, Combe S, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical patients with enoxaparin: a subgroup analysis of the MEDENOX study. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2003;14:341-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Escalante-Tattersfield T, Tucker O, Fajnwaks P, et al. Incidence of deep vein thrombosis in morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2008;4:126-30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hamad GG, Choban PS. Enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery: findings of the prophylaxis against VTE outcomes in bariatric surgery patients receiving enoxaparin (PROBE) study. Obes Surg 2005;15:1368-74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ojo P, Asiyanbola B, Valin E, Reinhold R. Post discharge prophylactic anticoagulation in gastric bypass patient-how safe? Obes Surg 2008;18:791-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Imberti D, Legnani C, Baldini E, et al. Pharmacodynamics of low molecular weight heparin in patients undergoing bariatric surgery: a prospective, randomised study comparing two doses of parnaparin (BAFLUX study). Thromb Res 2009;124:667-71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Borkgren-Okonek MJ, Hart RW, Pantano JE, et al. Enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in gastric bypass patients: extended duration, dose stratification, and antifactor Xa activity. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2008;4:625-83 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Simone EP, Madan AK, Tichansky DS, et al. Comparison of two low-molecular-weight heparin dosing regimens for patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc 2008;22:2392-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lin H, Faraklas I, Saffle J, Cochran A. Enoxaparin dose adjustment is associated with low incidence of venous thromboembolic events in acute burn patients. J Trauma 2011;71:1557-61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Costantini TW, Min E, Box K, et al. Dose adjusting enoxaparin is necessary to achieve adequate venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in trauma patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013;74:128-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dorffler-Melly J, de Jonge E, Pont AC, et al. Bioavailability of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin to patients on vaso. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07920-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Hematology Reports are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES