American Society of Hirudotherapy

Survey of Practice Pattern in Patients With Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Research article published in Anesthesia and analgesia (2021)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportDrug DevelopmentWanat-Hawthorne A et al. · Anesthesia and analgesia, 2021

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immune-mediated adverse reaction to heparin. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) are routinely anticoagulated with heparin before the initiation of bypass. Heparin is contraindicated, however, in patients with acute HIT, and alternatives to routine practice are often used. While guidelines have recently been published addressing this topic 10, there remains variance between institutions in how these cases are treated. Our goal was to better delineate practice trends in the diagnosis and management of HIT patients requiring CPB. METHODS: We surveyed members of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) and the American Society for Extracorporeal Technology (AmSECT) using an online survey tool. RESULTS: We received 304 completed surveys (5.8% response rate), 75% completed by an anesthesiologist, and 24% by a perfusionist. The majority of respondents used clinical history and/or antibody testing (71% and 63%, respectively) to diagnose HIT. Seventy-five percent of respondents reported using an institutional protocol for HIT-CPB cases. Most respondents (89%) reported having at least 1 case in the last 3 years, with a total case experience of at least 785 cases (785 = the minimum number of cases in each case volume category × the number of respondents choosing that category). The strategy recommended in published guidelines, bivalirudin, was the most commonly reported alternative anticoagulation strategy (75%) used by respondents in HIT cases, with most (83%) using the activated clotting time (ACT) to monitor anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: Most responding SCA and AmSECT members reported that their institution used a protocol or guideline for HIT/CPB cases, and most guidelines directed the use of bivalirudin as an alternative anticoagulant. Various other methods such as plasmapheresis are also being used with success in this patient population. Further research, including comparison studies of alternative anticoagulant strategies, is required to elucidate the best approach to these difficult cases.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAnticoagulantsCardiac Surgical ProceduresCardiopulmonary BypassContraindications, ProcedureDrug MonitoringDrug SubstitutionGuideline AdherenceHealth Care SurveysHeparinHirudinsHumansPeptide Fragments

Summary

Survey of Practice Pattern in Patients With Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This survey of 304 anesthesiologists and perfusionists examined practice patterns for anticoagulation management of patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. The study found that bivalirudin was the most commonly reported alternative anticoagulation strategy, utilized by 75% of respondents. The survey captures self-reported practice patterns rather than clinical outcomes, and its response rate was low at 5.8%. Furthermore, the abstract provides no information regarding bivalirudin's origins, structural relationships, or any connection to leeches, hirudin, or hirudotherapy. Consequently, this article has no defensible relevance to ASH's domain of hirudotherapy or the leech secretome.

Citation

Survey of Practice Pattern in Patients With Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Wanat-Hawthorne A et al. · Anesthesia and analgesia, 2021

Added to ASH library: May 27, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.