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 The optimal dosing strategy of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) to treat oral factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor-associated bleeding has not been established. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fixed versus variable 4F-PCC dosing for the management of FXa inhibitor-associated bleeding. METHODS A systematic literature search and meta-analysis of clinical studies was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to January 2022. The primary outcomes included hemostatic effectiveness, mortality, and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included 4F-PCC usage, total length of stay in hospital and in intensive care units, and time to 4F-PCC administration. The pooled incidence or mean was calculated using a random-effects model and compared between the 2 dosing strategies. RESULTS Twenty-five studies were included and data from 1,760 patients (fixed dosing, n = 228; variable dosing, n = 1,532) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in hemostatic effectiveness, thromboembolic events, or mortality rates between the dosing strategies. Hospital length of stay was significantly longer in the fixed-dosing group, with a mean stay of 7.4 days (95% CI: 3.6-11.1) compared to 5.9 days (95% CI: 5.5-6.3) in the variable-dosing group (P < 0.001). The mean initial 4F-PCC dose was significantly higher with variable dosing than fixed dosing (38 IU/kg; 95% CI: 32-44 vs. 27 IU/kg; 95% CI: 26-28, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS A fixed-dosing strategy appears to be a safe and effective alternative to variable weight-based dosing and was associated with lower 4F-PCC usage. However, direct comparative studies are needed to confirm these results.

Abstract

Long-term anticoagulation is used worldwide to prevent or treat thrombotic events. Anticoagulant therapy using vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is well established; however, anticoagulants carry an increased risk of potentially life-threatening bleeding. In cases of bleeding or need for surgery, patients require careful management, balancing the need for rapid anticoagulant reversal with risk of thromboembolic events. Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) replenish clotting factors and reverse VKA-associated coagulopathy. Two forms of PCC, 3-factor (3F-PCC) and 4-factor (4F-PCC), are available. Using PRISMA methodology, we systematically reviewed whether 4F-PCC is superior to 3F-PCC for the reversal of VKA-associated coagulopathy. Of the 392 articles identified, 48 full texts were reviewed, with 11 articles identified using criteria based on the PICOS format. Data were captured from 1,155 patients: 3F-PCC, n = 651; 4F-PCC, n = 504. ROBINS-I was used to assess bias. Nine studies showed international normalized ratio (INR) normalization to a predefined goal, ranging from ≤1.5 to ≤1.3, following PCC treatment. Meta-analysis of the data showed that 4F-PCC was favorable compared with 3F-PCC overall (odds ratio [OR]: 3.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.88-6.52, p < 0.0001) and for patients with a goal INR of ≤1.5 or ≤1.3 (OR: 3.45; 95% CI: 1.42-8.39, p = 0.006; OR: 3.25; 95% CI: 1.30-8.13, p = 0.01, respectively). However, heterogeneity was substantial (I (2) = 62%, I (2) = 70%, I (2) = 64%). Neither a significant difference in mortality (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.42-1.24, p = 0.23) nor in thromboembolisms was reported. These data suggest that 4F-PCC is better suited than 3F-PCC for the treatment of patients with VKA-associated coagulopathy, but further work is required for a definitive recommendation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Coagulopathy following cardiac surgery is associated with considerable blood product transfusion and high morbidity and mortality. The treatment of coagulopathy following cardiac surgery is challenging, with the replacement of clotting factors being based on transfusion of fresh frozen plasma (FFP). Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCCs) is an alternative method to replace clotting factors and warrants evaluation. PCCs are also an alternative method to treat refractory ongoing bleeding post-cardiac surgery compared to recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) and also warrants evaluation.   OBJECTIVES Assess the benefits and harms of PCCs in people undergoing cardiac surgery who have coagulopathic non-surgical bleeding. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) on the Web of Science on 20 April 2021. We searched Clinicaltrials.gov (www. CLINICALTRIALS gov), and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch/), for ongoing or unpublished trials. We checked the reference lists for additional references. We did not limit the searches by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised trials (NRSs).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.   MAIN RESULTS Eighteen studies were included  (4993 participants). Two were RCTs (151 participants) and 16 were NRSs. Both RCTs had low risk of bias (RoB) in almost all domains. Of the 16 NRSs, 14 were retrospective cohort analyses with one prospective study and one case report. The nine studies used in quantitative analysis were judged to have critical RoB, three serious and three moderate.   1. PCC versus standard treatment Evidence from RCTs showed PCCs are likely to reduce the number of units transfused compared to standard care (MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.78 to 0.00; participants = 151; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence from NRSs agreed with this, showing that PCCs may reduce the mean number of units transfused compared to standard care but the evidence is uncertain (MD -1.87 units, 95% CI -2.53 to -1.20; participants = 551; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence from RCTs showing a difference in the incidence of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion compared to standard care (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.40; participants = 101; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). Evidence from NRSs disagreed with this, showing that PCCs may reduce the mean number of units transfused compared to standard care but the evidence is uncertain (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.98; participants = 1046; studies = 4; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence from RCTs showing a difference in the number of thrombotic events with PCC compared to standard care (OR 0.68 95% CI 0.20 to 2.31; participants = 152; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). This is supported by NRSs, showing that PCCs may have no effect on the number of thrombotic events compared to standard care but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.99; participants = 1359; studies = 7; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence from RCTs showing a difference in mortality with PCC compared to standard care  (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.35; participants = 149; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). This is supported by evidence from NRSs, showing that PCCs may have little to no effect on mortality compared to standard care but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.51; participants = 1334; studies = 6; very low-quality evidence). Evidence from RCTs indicated that there was little to no difference in postoperative bleeding (MD -107.05 mLs, 95% CI -278.92 to 64.83; participants = 151, studies = 2; low-quality evidence).  PCCs may have little to no effect on intensive care length of stay (RCT evidence: MD -0.35 hours, 95% CI -19.26 to 18.57; participants = 151; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence) (NRS evidence: MD -18.00, 95% CI -43.14 to 7.14; participants = 225; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of renal replacement therapy (RCT evidence: OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.59; participants = 50; studies = 1; low-quality evidence) (NRS evidence: OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.98; participants = 684; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on additional adverse outcomes.   2. PCC versus rFVIIa For this comparison, all evidence was provided from NRSs.  PCC likely results in a large reduction of RBCs transfused intra-operatively in comparison to rFVIIa (MD-4.98 units, 95% CI -6.37 to -3.59; participants = 256; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence).  PCC may have little to no effect on the incidence of RBC units transfused comparative to rFVIIa; evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.56; participants = 150; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). PCC may have little to no effect on the number of thrombotic events comparative to rFVIIa; evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16; participants = 407; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). PCC may have little to no effect on the incidence of mortality (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.03; participants = 278; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence) or intensive care length of stay comparative to rFVIIa (MD -40 hours, 95% CI -110.41 to 30.41; participants = 106; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence); evidence is very uncertain . PCC may reduce bleeding (MD -674.34 mLs, 95% CI -906.04 to -442.64; participants = 150; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and incidence of renal replacement therapy (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.71; participants = 106; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) comparative to rFVIIa; evidence is very uncertain. No studies reported on other adverse events.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS PCCs could potentially be used as an alternative to standard therapy for coagulopathic bleeding post-cardiac surgery compared to FFP as shown by moderate-quality evidence and it may be an alternative to rFVIIa in refractory non-surgical bleeding but this is based on moderate to very low quality of evidence.

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

INTRODUCTION Significant blood loss during cardiac surgery is associated with a significant increase in morbidity and mortality. Factor Eight Inhibitor Bypassing Activity (FEIBA), a hemostatic bypassing agent mainly used in hemophiliac patients, has also been used for intractable surgical bleeding during cardiac surgical procedures in non-hemophiliac patients. However, concerns exist that its use may be linked to increased incidence of perioperative adverse effects including thrombotic complications. AREAS COVERED A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for all studies that reported the administration of FEIBA for treatment of bleeding during adult cardiac surgery in non-hemophiliac patients. After selecting of title and abstracts, two authors assessed the methodological quality of the full-text articles prior to final inclusion in the manuscript. EXPERT OPINION The safety profile of FEIBA was determined through an aggregate count of adverse events. Major complications included renal failure, re-operation for unresolved bleeding, postoperative mortality, and thromboembolic events. Overall, there is insufficient robust evidence to make a definitive conclusion about the safety or efficacy of using of FEIBA as a hemostatic agent in the setting of cardiac surgery.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE To determine if a fixed dose of 1000 IU of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) is as effective as traditional variable dosing based on body weight and international normalized ratio (INR) for reversal of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) anticoagulation. METHODS In this open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, patients with nonintracranial bleeds requiring VKA reversal with 4F-PCC were allocated to either a 1,000-IU fixed dose of 4F-PCC or the variable dose. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with effective hemostasis according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis definition. The design was noninferiority with a lower 95% confidence interval of no more than -6%. When estimating sample size, we assumed that fixed dosing would be 4% superior. RESULTS From October 2015 until January 2020, 199 of 310 intended patients were included before study termination due to decreasing enrollment rates. Of the 199 patients, 159 were allowed in the per-protocol analysis. Effective hemostasis was achieved in 87.3% (n=69 of 79) in fixed compared to 89.9% (n=71 of 79) in the variable dosing cohort (risk difference 2.5%, 95% confidence interval -13.3 to 7.9%, P=.27). Median door-to-needle times were 109 minutes (range 16 to 796) in fixed and 142 (17 to 1076) for the variable dose (P=.027). INR less than 2.0 at 60 minutes after 4F-PCC infusion was reached in 91.2% versus 91.7% (P=1.0). CONCLUSION The large majority of patients had good clinical outcome after 4F-PCC use; however, noninferiority of the fixed dose could not be demonstrated because the design assumed the fixed dose would be 4% superior. Door-to-needle time was shortened with the fixed dose, and INR reduction was similar in both dosing regimens.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) has high morbidity and mortality. The safety and outcome data of DOAC reversal agents in ICH are limited. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and outcomes of DOAC reversal agents among patients with ICH. DATA SOURCES PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception through April 29, 2022. STUDY SELECTION The eligibility criteria were (1) adult patients (age ≥18 years) with ICH receiving treatment with a DOAC, (2) reversal of DOAC, and (3) reported safety and anticoagulation reversal outcomes. All nonhuman studies and case reports, studies evaluating patients with ischemic stroke requiring anticoagulation reversal or different dosing regimens of DOAC reversal agents, and mixed study groups with DOAC and warfarin were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and abstracted data. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was proportion with anticoagulation reversed. The primary safety end points were all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events after the reversal agent. RESULTS A total of 36 studies met criteria for inclusion, with a total of 1832 patients (967 receiving 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate [4F-PCC]; 525, andexanet alfa [AA]; 340, idarucizumab). The mean age was 76 (range, 68-83) years, and 57% were men. For 4F-PCC, anticoagulation reversal was 77% (95% CI, 72%-82%; I2 = 55%); all-cause mortality, 26% (95% CI, 20%-32%; I2 = 68%), and thromboembolic events, 8% (95% CI, 5%-12%; I2 = 41%). For AA, anticoagulation reversal was 75% (95% CI, 67%-81%; I2 = 48%); all-cause mortality, 24% (95% CI, 16%-34%; I2 = 73%), and thromboembolic events, 14% (95% CI, 10%-19%; I2 = 16%). Idarucizumab for reversal of dabigatran had an anticoagulation reversal rate of 82% (95% CI, 55%-95%; I2 = 41%), all-cause mortality, 11% (95% CI, 8%-15%, I2 = 0%), and thromboembolic events, 5% (95% CI, 3%-8%; I2 = 0%). A direct retrospective comparison of 4F-PCC and AA showed no differences in anticoagulation reversal, proportional mortality, or thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In the absence of randomized clinical comparison trials, the overall anticoagulation reversal, mortality, and thromboembolic event rates in this systematic review and meta-analysis appeared similar among available DOAC reversal agents for managing ICH. Cost, institutional formulary status, and availability may restrict reversal agent choice, particularly in small community hospitals.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown a positive benefit-risk balance in both clinical trials and real-world data, but approximately 2% to 3.5% of patients experience major bleeding annually. Many of these patients require hospitalization, and the administration of reversal agents may be required to control bleeding. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes associated with the use of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates, idarucizumab, or andexanet for reversal of severe DOAC-associated bleeding. METHODS The investigators systematically searched for studies of reversal agents for the treatment of severe bleeding associated with DOAC. Mortality rates, thromboembolic events, and hemostatic efficacy were meta-analyzed using a random effects model. RESULTS The investigators evaluated 60 studies in 4,735 patients with severe DOAC-related bleeding who were treated with 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936). The mortality rate was 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.1% to 20.4%), and it was higher in patients with intracranial bleedings (20.2%) than in patients with extracranial hemorrhages (15.4%). The thromboembolism rate was 4.6% (95% CI: 3.3% to 6.0%), being particularly high with andexanet (10.7%; 95% CI: 6.5% to 15.7%). The effective hemostasis rate was 78.5% (95% CI: 75.1% to 81.8%) and was similar regardless of the reversal agent considered. The rebleeding rate was 13.2% (95% CI: 5.5% to 23.1%) and 78% of rebleeds occurred after resumption of anticoagulation. The risk of death was markedly and significantly associated with failure to achieve effective hemostasis (relative risk: 3.63; 95% CI: 2.56 to 5.16). The results were robust regardless of the type of study or the hemostatic scale used. CONCLUSIONS The risk of death after severe DOAC-related bleeding remains significant despite a high rate of effective hemostasis with reversal agents. Failure to achieve effective hemostasis strongly correlated with a fatal outcome. Thromboembolism rates are particularly high with andexanet. Comparative clinical trials are needed.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Approximately 15% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery receive frozen plasma (FP) for bleeding. Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) have logistical and safety advantages over FP and may be a suitable alternative. OBJECTIVES To determine the proportion of patients who received PCC and then required FP, explore hemostatic effects and safety, and assess the feasibility of study procedures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Parallel-group randomized pilot study conducted at 2 Canadian hospitals. Adult patients requiring coagulation factor replacement for bleeding during cardiac surgery (from September 23, 2019, to June 19, 2020; final 28-day follow-up visit, July 17, 2020). Data analysis was initiated on September 15, 2020. INTERVENTIONS Prothrombin complex concentrate (1500 IU for patients weighing ≤60 kg and 2000 IU for patients weighing >60 kg) or FP (3 U for patients weighing ≤60 kg and 4 U for patients weighing >60 kg), repeated once as needed within 24 hours (FP used for any subsequent doses in both groups). Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Hemostatic effectiveness (whether patients received any hemostatic therapies from 60 minutes to 4 and 24 hours after initiation of the intervention, amount of allogeneic blood components administered within 24 hours after start of surgery, and avoidance of red cell transfusions within 24 hours after start of surgery), protocol adherence, and adverse events. The analysis set comprised all randomized patients who had undergone cardiac surgery, received at least 1 dose of either treatment, and provided informed consent after surgery. RESULTS Of 169 screened patients, 131 were randomized, and 101 were treated (54 with PCC and 47 with FP), provided consent, and were included in the analysis (median age, 64 years; interquartile range [IQR], 54-73 years; 28 [28%] were female; 82 [81%] underwent complex operations). The PCC group received a median 24.9 IU/kg (IQR, 21.8-27.0 IU/kg) of PCC (2 patients [3.7%; 95% CI, 0.4%-12.7%] required FP). The FP group received a median 12.5 mL/kg (IQR, 10.0-15.0 mL/kg) of FP (4 patients [8.5%; 95% CI, 2.4%-20.4%] required >2 doses of FP). Hemostatic therapy was not required at the 4-hour time point for 43 patients (80%) in the PCC group and for 32 patients (68%) in the FP group (P = .25) nor at the 24-hour time point for 41 patients (76%) in the PCC group and for 31 patients (66%) patients in the FP group (P = .28). The median numbers of units for 24-hour cumulative allogeneic transfusions (red blood cells, platelets, and FP) were 6.0 U (IQR, 4.0-11.0 U) in the PCC group and 14.0 U (IQR, 8.0-20.0 U) in the FP group (ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77; P < .001). After exclusion of FP administered as part of the investigational medicinal product, the median numbers of units were 6.0 U (IQR, 4.0-11.0 U) in the PCC group and 10.0 U (IQR, 6.0-16.0 U) in the FP group (ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.59-1.08; P = .15). For red blood cells alone, the median numbers were 1.5 U (IQR, 0.0-4.0 U) in the PCC group and 3.0 U (IQR, 1.0-5.0 U) in the FP group (ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.47-0.99; P = .05). During the first 24 hours after start of surgery, 15 patients in the PCC group (28%) and 8 patients in the FP group (17%) received no red blood cells (P = .24). Adverse event profiles were similar. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found that the study protocols were feasible. Adequately powered randomized clinical trials are warranted to determine whether PCC is a suitable substitute for FP for mitigation of bleeding in cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04114643.