Abstract

BACKGROUND Cirrhotic coagulopathy is a delicate interplay comprising deficiencies of both procoagulant and anticoagulant factors. AIM: To identify the relationship between international normalised ratio [INR] with periprocedural bleeding risk among patients with cirrhosis. METHODS Following a thorough database search of the primary literature, 29 studies were targeted for analysis, including 13 276 patients with cirrhosis undergoing indicated procedures. RESULTS There was no significant association between periprocedural bleeding events and pre-procedural INR [pooled odds ratio 1.52; 95% CI 0.99, 2.33; P = 0.06]. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in mean INR [pooled mean difference 0.05; 95% CI -0.03, 0.13; P = 0.23] upon comparison of patients who either did or did not experience a periprocedural bleeding event. Significant heterogeneity among some studies was primarily fuelled by significant subgroup effects of both specific procedure types performed. Additionally, there were markedly inconsistent transfusion practices across studies. CONCLUSIONS INR fails to serve as a significant correlate for periprocedural bleeding events among patients with cirrhosis. Ideally, these new findings will help serve as a springboard for future studies, as well as to minimize transfusion of blood products, which command a myriad of adverse effects among patients with cirrhosis.

Abstract

The utility of thromboelastography/thromboelastometry currently has unvalidated clinical benefit in the assessment and reversal of coagulopathy among cirrhotic patients as compared to standard coagulation testing. A novel systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in order to assess pooled outcome data among patients receiving thromboelastography/thromboelastometry as compared to standard coagulation testing. As compared to standard coagulation testing, there was a significant reduction in the number of patients requiring pRBC, platelet, and fresh frozen plasma transfusions among thromboelastography/thromboelastometry group with pooled OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.32-0.85; P = 0.009), 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.74; P = 0.009), and 0.19 (95% CI 0.12-0.31; P < 0.00001), respectively. Similarly, there was a significant reduction in number of pRBC, platelet, and fresh frozen plasma units transfused in the thromboelastography/thromboelastometry group with pooled MD -1.53 (95% CI -2.86 to -0.21; P = 0.02), -0.57 (95% CI -1.06 to -0.09; P = 0.02), and -2.71 (95% CI -4.34 to -1.07; P = 0.001), respectively. There were significantly decreased total bleeding events with pooled OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.31-0.94; P = 0.03) and amount of intraoperative bleeding during liver transplantation with pooled MD -1.46 (95% CI -2.49 to -0.44; P = 0.005) in the thromboelastography/thromboelastometry group. Overall, there was no significant difference in mortality between groups with pooled OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.63-1.30; P = 0.60). As compared to standard coagulation testing, a thromboelastography/thromboelastometry-guided approach to the assessment and reversal of cirrhotic coagulopathy improves overall number of patients exposed to blood product transfusions, quantity of transfusions, and bleeding events.