Abstract

IMPORTANCE Optimal transfusion strategies in traumatic hemorrhage are unknown. Reports suggest a beneficial effect of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) on blood product consumption. OBJECTIVE To investigate the efficacy and safety of 4F-PCC administration in patients at risk of massive transfusion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority trial in 12 French designated level I trauma centers from December 29, 2017, to August 31, 2021, involving consecutive patients with trauma at risk of massive transfusion. Follow-up was completed on August 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Intravenous administration of 1 mL/kg of 4F-PCC (25 IU of factor IX/kg) vs 1 mL/kg of saline solution (placebo). Patients, investigators, and data analysts were blinded to treatment assignment. All patients received early ratio-based transfusion (packed red blood cells:fresh frozen plasma ratio of 1:1 to 2:1) and were treated according to European traumatic hemorrhage guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was 24-hour all blood product consumption (efficacy); arterial or venous thromboembolic events were a secondary outcome (safety). RESULTS Of 4313 patients with the highest trauma level activation, 350 were eligible for emergency inclusion, 327 were randomized, and 324 were analyzed (164 in the 4F-PCC group and 160 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) age of participants was 39 (27-56) years, Injury Severity Score was 36 (26-50 [major trauma]), and admission blood lactate level was 4.6 (2.8-7.4) mmol/L; prehospital arterial systolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg in 179 of 324 patients (59%), 233 patients (73%) were men, and 226 (69%) required expedient hemorrhage control. There was no statistically or clinically significant between-group difference in median (IQR) total 24-hour blood product consumption (12 [5-19] U in the 4F-PCC group vs 11 [6-19] U in the placebo group; absolute difference, 0.2 U [95% CI, -2.99 to 3.33]; P = .72). In the 4F-PCC group, 56 patients (35%) presented with at least 1 thromboembolic event vs 37 patients (24%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 11% [95% CI, 1%-21%]; relative risk, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.10]; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with trauma at risk of massive transfusion, there was no significant reduction of 24-hour blood product consumption after administration of 4F-PCC, but thromboembolic events were more common. These findings do not support systematic use of 4F-PCC in patients at risk of massive transfusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03218722.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Patients requiring emergent warfarin reversal (EWR) have been prescribed three-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC3) and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC4) to reverse the anticoagulant effects of warfarin. There is no existing systematic review and meta-analysis of studies directly comparing PCC3 and PCC4. METHODS The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of achieving study defined target INR goal after PCC3 or PCC4 administration. Secondary objectives were to determine the difference in safety endpoints, thromboembolic events (TE), and survival during the patients' hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR), and heterogeneity associated with the outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. RESULTS Ten full-text manuscripts and five abstracts provided data for the primary and secondary outcomes. Patients requiring EWR had more than three times the odds of reversal to goal INR when they were given PCC4 compared to PCC3 (OR = 3.61, 95% CI: 1.97-6.60, p < 0.001). There was no meaningful clinical association or statistically significant result between PCC4 and PCC3 groups in TE (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.83-2.91, p = 0.17), or survival during hospital stay (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.81-2.23, p = 0.25). CONCLUSION PCC4 is more effective than PCC3 in meeting specific predefined INR goals and has similar safety profiles in patients requiring emergent reversal of the anticoagulant effects of warfarin.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) is frequently used as a reversal agent for major bleeding in patients on factor Xa inhibitors. Piran et al. reviewed its safety and efficacy for the first time in 2018. However, more studies have been published on the matter since then. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of this use and update this review. METHODS We systematically searched in Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from 1/1/2018 to 6/19/2020. A random effects model meta-analysis of proportions was used to study the efficacy of PCC on major bleeding control, mortality and thrombosis incidence. RESULTS 33 studies (n = 2568 patients), with the majority of studies being uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies, were included; atrial fibrillation was the main factor Xa inhibitors indication and approximately 62% of patients presented with intracranial hemorrhage. We estimated the pooled proportion outcomes for hemostasis (80%, CI 0.75-0.84), mortality (15%, CI 0.11-0.19) and thromboembolic adverse events (3%, CI 0.02-0.05). High versus low dose PCC did not affect hemostasis or thrombosis. Patients with ICH had higher mortality rates (22%, CI 0.13-0.32). Heterogeneity was significant (Ι(2) > 50% with p < 0.05) for all pooled proportional outcomes. The quality of evidence was low given that included studies were not randomized or controlled. CONCLUSION Our study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of the off label use of 4F PCC in major bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors. Our data require further validation with future randomized clinical trials.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Optimal management for trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) is a clinical conundrum. In conjunction with the transfusion of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP), additional administration of prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) was proposed to bring about further coagulative benefit. However, investigations evaluating the efficacy as well as corresponding side effects were scarce and inconsistent. The aim of this study was to systematically review current literature and to perform a meta-analysis comparing FFP+PCC with FFP alone. METHODS Web search followed by manual interrogation was performed to identify relevant literatures fulfilling the following criteria, subjects as TIC patients taking no baseline anticoagulants, without underlying coagulative disorders, and reported clinical consequences. Those comparing FFP alone with PCC alone were excluded. Comprehensive Meta-analysis software was utilized, and statistical results were delineated with odd ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI). I(2) was calculated to determine heterogeneity. The primary endpoint was set as all-cause mortality, while the secondary endpoint consisted of international normalized ratio (INR) correction, transfusion of blood product, and thrombosis rate. RESULTS One hundred and sixty-four articles were included for preliminary evaluation, 3 of which were qualified for meta-analysis. A total of 840 subjects were pooled for assessment. Minimal heterogeneity was present in the comparisons (I(2) < 25%). In the PCC + FFP cohort, reduced mortality rate was observed (OR: 0.631; 95% CI: 0.450-0.884, p = 0.007) after pooling. Meanwhile, INR correction time was shorter under PCC + FFP (MD: -608.300 mins, p < 0.001), whilst the rate showed no difference (p = 0.230). The PCC + FFP group is less likely to mandate transfusion of packed red blood cells (p < 0.001) and plasma (p < 0.001), but not platelet (p = 0.615). The incidence of deep vein thrombosis was comparable in the two groups (p = 0.460). CONCLUSIONS Compared with FFP only, PCC + FFP demonstrated better survival rate, favorable clinical recovery and no elevation of thromboembolism events after TIC.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To combine evidence on andexanet alfa and prothrombin complex concentrates for factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding to guide clinicians on reversal strategies. DATA SOURCES Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION Observational studies and randomized clinical trials studying hemostatic effectiveness of andexanet alfa or prothrombin complex concentrate for acute reversal of factor Xa inhibitor-associated hemorrhage. DATA EXTRACTION Two independent reviewers extracted the data from the studies. Visualization and comparison of hemostatic effectiveness using Sarode et al or International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scientific and Standardization Committee criteria at 12 and 24 hours, (venous) thrombotic event rates, and inhospital mortality were performed by constructing Forest plots. Exploratory analysis using a logistic mixed model analysis was performed to identify factors associated with effectiveness and venous thromboembolic event. DATA SYNTHESIS A total of 21 studies were included (andexanet: 438 patients; prothrombin complex concentrate: 1,278 patients). The (weighted) mean effectiveness for andexanet alfa was 82% at 12 hours and 71% at 24 hours. The (weighted) mean effectiveness for prothrombin complex concentrate was 88% at 12 hours and 76% at 24 hours. The mean 30-day symptomatic venous thromboembolic event rates were 5.0% for andexanet alfa and 1.9% for prothrombin complex concentrate. The mean 30-day total thrombotic event rates for andexanet alfa and prothrombin complex concentrate were 10.7% and 3.1%, respectively. Mean inhospital mortality was 23.3% for andexanet versus 15.8% for prothrombin complex concentrate. Exploratory analysis controlling for potential confounders did not demonstrate significant differences between both reversal agents. CONCLUSIONS Currently, available evidence does not unequivocally support the clinical effectiveness of andexanet alfa or prothrombin complex concentrate to reverse factor Xa inhibitor-associated acute major bleeding, nor does it permit conventional meta-analysis of potential superiority. Neither reversal agent was significantly associated with increased effectiveness or a higher rate of venous thromboembolic event. These results underscore the importance of randomized controlled trials comparing the two reversal agents and may provide guidance in designing institutional guidelines.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Urgent reversal of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is required for major bleeding or urgent surgery by intravenous vitamin K with either prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) or fresh frozen plasma (FFP). However, there is lack of consensus regarding the superiority of either reversal agent. We sought to compare the performance of PCC and FFP in urgent reversal of VKA. METHODS A meta-analysis was conducted up to November 2018. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS Seventeen studies comprising 2606 participants met the inclusion criteria. Compared with FFP treatment, PCC treatment led to a reduction in 90-day all-cause mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.90, p = 0.01), better reversal of INR (OR 7.36, 95% CI 4.18-12.98; p < 0.00001) and lower risk of at least one treatment-related adverse event (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.80, p = 0.006). Among patients with VKA-associated intracranial haemorrhage, PCC treatment led to a reduction in 90-day all-cause mortality (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.94, p = 0.03) and better reversal of INR (OR 6.52, 95% CI 1.66-25.59, p = 0.007). There were no differences between these two agents in thrombogenicity, requirement for and quantity of red blood cell transfusions, all adverse events, fluid overload or disability on discharge or at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS As an agent for urgent reversal of VKA, PCC outperforms FFP in 90-day all-cause mortality including those with VKA-related intracranial haemorrhage, INR reversal and treatment-related adverse events.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Some hospital patients may be at risk of or may present with major bleeding. Abnormalities of clotting (coagulation) are often recorded in these people, and the traditional management has been with transfusions of blood components, either to prevent bleeding (prophylactic) or to treat bleeding (therapeutic). There is growing interest in the use of targeted therapies with specific pro-coagulant haemostatic (causing bleeding to stop and to keep blood within a damaged blood vessel) factor concentrates in place of plasma. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects and safety of pro-coagulant haemostatic factors and factor concentrates in the prevention and treatment of bleeding in people without haemophilia. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2018, issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1948), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1938), PubMed (publications in process to 18 April 2018), PROSPERO, Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), LILACS (from 1980), IndMED (from 1985), KoreaMed (from 1934), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (from 1990) and ongoing trial databases to 18 April 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs that compared intravenous administration of a pro-coagulant haemostatic factor concentrate, either with placebo, current best or standard treatment, or another pro-coagulant haemostatic factor concentrate for prevention or treatment of bleeding. There was no restriction on the types of participants. We excluded studies of desmopressin, tranexamic acid and aminocaproic acid and use of pro-coagulant haemostatic factors for vitamin K over-anticoagulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS We identified 31 RCTs with 2392 participants and 22 ongoing trials. There were 13 therapeutic RCTs that randomised 1057 participants (range from 20 to 249 participants) and 18 prophylactic trials that randomised 1335 participants (range 20 to 479 participants). The pro-coagulant haemostatic factor concentrate was fibrinogen in 23 trials, Factor XIII in seven trials and pro-thrombin complex concentrates (PCC) in one trial.Seventeen trials had industrial funding or support, eight studies either did not declare their funding or were unclear about their source of funding and six studies declared non-industrial funding sources.Certainty in the evidence and included study biasOur certainty in the evidence, using GRADE criteria, ranged from very low to high across all outcomes. We assessed most outcomes as being of low certainty. Risks of bias were a concern in many of the RCTs; randomisation methodology was unclear in 15 RCTs, with allocation concealment unclear in 14 RCTs and at high risk of bias in five RCTs. The blinding status of outcome assessors was unclear in 13 RCTs and at high risk of bias in five RCTs, although most outcomes in these trials were objective and not prone to observer bias. Study personnel were often unblinded or insufficient information was available to assess their level of blinding (five RCTs were at unclear risk and seven at high risk of bias).Primary outcomesAll-cause mortality was reported by 21 RCTs, arterial thromboembolic events by 22 RCTs, and venous thromboembolic events by 21 RCTs.Fibrinogen concentrate: prophylactic trials with inactive comparator (nine RCTs)The trials had heterogeneous clinical settings and outcome time points, so we did not pool the data. Compared to placebo, there was no evidence that prophylactic fibrinogen concentrate reduced all-cause mortality (4 RCTs; 248 participants). Compared to inactive comparators there was low- to moderate-quality evidence that prophylactic fibrinogen concentrate did not increase the risk of arterial or venous thromboembolic complications (7 RCTs; 398 participants).Fibrinogen concentrate: prophylactic trials with active comparator (two RCTs)There was no mortality or incidence of thromboembolic events in these two RCTs (with 57 participants).Fibrinogen concentrate: therapeutic trials with inactive comparator (eight RCTs)The trials had heterogeneous surgical settings and outcome time points, so we pooled data for subgroups only. Compared to an inactive comparator, there was no evidence (quality ranging from low to high) that fibrinogen concentrate reduced all-cause mortality in actively bleeding participants (7 RCTs; 724 participants). Compared to inactive comparators there was no evidence that the use of fibrinogen concentrate in active bleeding increased arterial (7 RCTs; 607 participants) or venous (6 RCTs; 562 participants) thromboembolic events.Fibrinogen concentrate: therapeutic trials with active comparator (four RCTs)We did not pool the outcome data, as they were not measured at comparable time points. Compared to other active pro-coagulant agents, there was no evidence (very low to moderate quality) that fibrinogen concentrate reduced all-cause mortality in actively bleeding participants (4 RCTs; 220 participants). There was no evidence that fibrinogen concentrate increased the risk of arterial (3 RCTs; 126 participants) or venous (4 RCTs; 220 participants) thromboembolic events.FactorXIII: Prophylactic trials with inactive comparator (six trials)The trials were heterogeneous in their surgical settings and time points for outcome analysis, so we pooled data for subgroups only. Compared to an inactive comparator, there was no evidence that prophylactic Factor XIII reduced all-cause mortality (5 RCTs; 414 participants). There was no evidence (very low to low quality) of a difference in the arterial or venous event rate between Factor XIII and inactive comparators (4 trials; 354 participants).FactorXIII: therapeutic trials with inactive comparator (one trial)There was no mortality or incidence of thromboembolic events in this trial.Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC): prophylactic trials with inactive comparator (one trial)There was no evidence (moderate quality) that PCC reduced all-cause mortality (1 trial; 78 participants). No thromboembolic complications were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The paucity of good-quality comparable evidence precludes the drawing of conclusions for clinical practice. Further research is required to determine the risk-to-benefit ratio of these interventions. The sample sizes of future RCTs would need to be greatly increased to detect a reduction in mortality or thromboembolic events between treatment arms. To improve consistency in outcome reporting, the development of core outcome sets is essential and may help address a number of the limitations identified in this review.

Abstract

To systematically evaluate the effectiveness of prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) in neonates and infants, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis based on current evidence. Quality of studies was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. For dichotomous data, we obtained the number of events and total number and calculated the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous variables, we obtained mean and standard deviation (SD) values and calculated mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We identified six trials and two cohort studies. For trials, selection bias and performance bias were high, while detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias were relatively low. For cohort studies, selection bias was low. Both individual studies and meta-analysis failed to find any benefit of PCC on mortality. Meta-analysis also failed to show any benefit in reducing intracranial hemorrhage. The effectiveness of PCC on the correction of hemostatic defects was inconsistent among studies. In addition, PCC was not more effective than fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in correcting hemostatic defects. CONCLUSION There is insufficient evidence to allow a recommendation for use of PCC in neonates and infants. What is Known: * Prothrombin Complex Concentrate is becoming increasingly used off-label for treatment of neonates and infants with severe bleeding or risk of severe bleeding. * Some case reports showed PCC seemed to be effective for infants and children with coagulation factor deficiency, but evidence about the effectiveness of PCC to reverse serious Vitamin K Deficiency Bleeding is limited. What is New: * As far as we know, this is the first systematic review that evaluates the effectiveness of PPC in neonates with bleeding or risk of bleeding. * There is insufficient evidence to allow a recommendation for use of PCCs in neonates and infants.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Clinicians often need to rapidly reverse vitamin K antagonists in the setting of major hemorrhage or urgent need for surgery. Little is known about the safety profile of the traditional reversal agent, plasma, or the newly approved agent, four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC), in a randomized setting. This is an integrated analysis of safety data from two clinical trials that evaluated 4F-PCC versus plasma for the treatment of patients requiring rapid vitamin K antagonist reversal for acute major bleeding or prior to an urgent surgical/invasive procedure. METHODS This descriptive analysis comprised adverse event data from two phase IIIb, randomized, controlled trials. The bleeding and surgical studies were performed across 36 and 33 sites, respectively, in nine countries, with the integrated analysis comprising 388 patients (4F-PCC: n=191; plasma: n=197) aged ≥18 years, who required vitamin K antagonist reversal due to major bleeding or prior to an urgent surgical/invasive procedure. Patients received either 4F-PCC, containing non-activated factors II, VII, IX, X and proteins C and S (Beriplex(R) /Kcentra(R) , CSL Behring), or plasma, both dosed according to baseline international normalized ratio and body weight. Patients were also to receive vitamin K1. Adverse events and serious adverse events were assessed up to Day 10 and 45, respectively. RESULTS The proportion of patients with adverse events (4F-PCC: 115/191 [60.2%]; plasma: 124/197 [62.9%]) and serious adverse events (4F-PCC: 54/191 [28.3%]; plasma: 49/197 [24.9%]) was similar between groups. The proportion of patients with thromboembolic events was also similar between groups (4F-PCC: 14/191 [7.3%]; plasma: 14/197 [7.1%]). There were 13 (6.8%) deaths in the 4F-PCC group and 13 (6.6%) in the plasma group. Fluid overload events occurred in more patients in the plasma group than the 4F-PCC group (25 [12.7%] and 9 [4.7%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS These safety data represent the largest controlled assessment of a 4F-PCC to date. For patients requiring urgent vitamin K antagonist reversal, 4F-PCC had a similar safety profile to plasma (adverse events, serious adverse events, thromboembolic events and deaths), but was associated with fewer fluid overload events. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Haematoma expansion is a major cause of mortality in intracranial haemorrhage related to vitamin K antagonists (VKA-ICH). Normalisation of the international normalised ratio (INR) is recommended, but optimum haemostatic management is controversial. We assessed the safety and efficacy of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) versus prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) in patients with VKA-ICH. METHODS We did an investigator-initiated, multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial. Patients aged at least 18 years with VKA-ICH who presented within 12 h after symptom onset with an INR of at least 2.0 were randomly assigned (1:1) by numbered sealed envelopes to 20 mL/kg of intravenous FFP or 30 IU/kg of intravenous four-factor PCC within 1 h after initial cerebral CT scan. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with INR 1.2 or lower within 3 h of treatment initiation. Masking of treatment was not possible, but the primary analysis was observer masked. Analyses were done using a treated-as-randomised approach. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2008-005653-37, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00928915. FINDINGS Between Aug 7, 2009, and Jan 9, 2015, 54 patients were randomly assigned (26 to FFP and 28 to PCC) and 50 received study drug (23 FFP and 27 PCC). The trial was terminated on Feb 6, 2015, after inclusion of 50 patients after a safety analysis because of safety concerns. Two (9%) of 23 patients in the FFP group versus 18 (67%) of 27 in the PCC group reached the primary endpoint (adjusted odds ratio 30.6, 95% CI 4.7-197.9; p=0.0003). 13 patients died: eight (35%) of 23 in the FFP group (five from haematoma expansion, all occurring within 48 h after symptom onset) and five (19%) of 27 in the PCC group (none from haematoma expansion), the first of which occurred on day 5 after start of treatment. Three thromboembolic events occurred within 3 days (one in the FFP group and two in the PCC group), and six after day 12 (one and five). 43 serious adverse events (20 in the FFP group and 23 in the PCC group) occurred in 26 patients. Six serious adverse events were judged to be FFP related (four cases of haematoma expansion, one anaphylactic reaction, and one ischaemic stroke) and two PCC related (ischaemic stroke and pulmonary embolism). INTERPRETATION In patients with VKA-related intracranial hemorrhage, four-factor PCC might be superior to FFP with respect to normalising the INR, and faster INR normalisation seemed to be associated with smaller haematoma expansion. Although an effect of PCC on clinical outcomes remains to be shown, our data favour the use of PCC over FFP in intracranial haemorrhage related to VKA. FUNDING Octapharma.