{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02704164413196322, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014602487831260141, 'mean_word_length': 5.208053691275167, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Residual Enoxaparin Activity, Anti-Xa Levels, and Concerns About the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Anticoagulation Guidelines

Abstract Currently, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) anticoagulation guidelines recommend that before the performance of a neuraxial procedure a minimum of 24 hours should elapse following a treatment dose of enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice daily or 1.5 mg/kg once daily). The guidelines have since their inception also consistently recommended against the routine use of anti-Xa level monitoring for patients receiving enoxaparin. However, we noted in our clinical practice that anti-Xa levels were frequently still elevated despite patients meeting the time-based recommendation for treatment dose enoxaparin. To further investigate the possibility that residual anticoagulant activity may persist longer than 24 hours after a treatment dose of enoxaparin, we assessed anti-Xa level activity in patients presenting for elective surgery. Despite nearly universal compliance with ASRA's anticoagulation guidelines (1 sample was drawn at 23.25 hours), anti-Xa activity was found to be elevated in 11 of 19 patients. While 10 patients had an anti-Xa level within the peak prophylactic range (0.2–0.5 IU/mL), 1 patient's level was found to still be in the peak therapeutic range (0.5–1.0 IU/mL). These findings suggest that significant anticoagulant activity may persist longer than previously appreciated after the last treatment dose of enoxaparin and that the current time-based ASRA recommendation may not be conservative enough. Further research is needed to delineate the level of anti-Xa activity below which it is likely safe to proceed with a neuraxial procedure, but it may be time to reconsider the utility of anti-Xa level monitoring when it is available.