Risk of Venous Thromboembolism After Receiving Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Warfarin-associated Intracranial Hemorrhage

Prothrombin complex concentrate in cardiac surgery for the treatment of coagulopathic bleeding

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Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch/), for ongoing or unpublished trials.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.

Thromboembolic Complications After Receipt of Prothrombin Complex Concentrate

Purpose: Patients presenting with life-threatening bleeding associated with oral anticoagulants (OACs) are challenging with few available treatments. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) is an option for OAC reversal in the setting of life-threatening bleeding with a relatively benign safety profile. Little is known about the risk of developing thromboembolic complications (TEC) in patients receiving PCC who were previously anticoagulated. The aim of this study is to characterize the rate of TEC after receipt of PCC. Methods: All adult patients who received 4-Factor PCC for life-threatening bleeding were retrospectively evaluated over a 2-year time period. Data collected included anticoagulant and indication, bleeding source, PCC dose, INR, and TEC within 14 days of PCC dose, including venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Results: Three hundred thirty-three patients received 383 PCC doses. Of these, 55 (16.5%) patients developed TEC, including VTE, ischemic stroke, and acute myocardial infarction. There was increased rivaroxaban use in patients who developed TEC (25.4% vs 12.2%; P = .011). Additionally, there were more patients who had anticoagulation for a previous TEC in those who developed a new TEC (38.2% vs 23.4%; P = .022). Lastly, there was a higher rate of TEC in those who received >1 dose of PCC (21.8% vs 7.9%; P = .002). Conclusion: PCC administration in the setting of life-threatening bleeding is not benign. Risk of TEC increases in patients who have rivaroxaban reversal, receive a repeat dose of PCC, and have a TEC indication for their anticoagulation and these factors should be further investigated.

Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Trauma Induced Coagulopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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). I² 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 (I² < 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.

Safety and efficacy of prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) for anticoagulation reversal in patients undergoing urgent neurosurgical procedures: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Anticoagulant therapy poses a significant risk for patients undergoing emergency neurosurgery procedures, necessitating reversal with prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) or fresh frozen plasma (FFP). Data on PCC efficacy lack consistency in this setting. This systematic review and metaanalysis aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of PCC for anticoagulation reversal in the context of urgent neurosurgery. Articles from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were screened according to the PRISMA checklist. Adult patients receiving anticoagulation reversal with PCC for emergency neurosurgical procedures were included. When available, patients who received FFP were included as a comparison group. Pooled estimates of observational studies were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes via random-effects modeling. Initial search returned 4505 articles, of which 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Anticoagulants used included warfarin (83%), rivaroxaban (6.8%), phenprocoumon (6.1%), apixaban (2.2%), and dabigatran (1.5%). The mean International Normalized Ratio (INR) prePCC administration ranged from 2.3 to 11.7, while postPCC administration from 1.1 to 1.4. All-cause mortality at 30 days was 27% (95%CI 21, 34%; I² = 44.6%; p-heterogeneity = 0.03) and incidence of thromboembolic events was 6.00% among patients treated with PCC (95%CI 4.00, 10.0%; I² = 0%; p-heterogeneity = 0.83). Results comparing PCC and FFP demonstrated no statistically significant differences in INR reversal, mortality, or incidence of thromboembolic events. This metaanalysis demonstrated adequate safety and efficacy for PCC in the reversal of anticoagulation for urgent neurosurgical procedures. There was no significant difference between PCC and FFP, though further trials would be useful in demonstrating the safety and efficacy of PCC in this setting.

A Retrospective Comparison of 3-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Products for Warfarin Reversal

Background and Purpose

Current guidelines suggest that 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate is a possible alternative to 4-factor products for the emergent reversal of bleeding secondary to warfarin. While multiple observational studies have evaluated various forms of 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate individually, no study has compared the efficacy of the 2 products. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of Bebulin™ and Profilnine™ for the emergent reversal of warfarin-associated major bleeding.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving both Bebulin™ and Profilnine™ at an urban, academic medical center with comprehensive stroke center designation and a neurosurgical center of excellence. All patients were treated at a single center that utilized a fixed, weight-based dosing protocol. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each group achieving a goal international normalization ratio of 1.4 or less.

Results

There was a significant difference in goal international normalization ratio achieved favoring Bebulin™ (85.5% vs 27.3%; P < .001) over Profilnine™. Median dose per kilogram of actual body weight was the same between the groups. When we assessed results by baseline™ international normalization ratio subgroup, more patients in the Bebulin™ group achieved goal when baseline values were 6 or less. No thrombotic events were documented in either group.

Conclusions

We found that patients treated with Bebulin™ experienced significantly higher rates of successful international normalization ratio reversal when compared to those who received Profilnine™. Further research is needed to determine the comparative efficacy between the 2 agents.

Correlation of Thromboelastography with Apparent Rivaroxaban Concentration: Has Point-of-Care Testing Improved?

BACKGROUND

Concern remains over reliable point-of-care testing to guide reversal of rivaroxaban, a commonly used factor Xa inhibitor, in high-acuity settings. Thromboelastography (TEG), a point-of-care viscoelastic assay, may have the ability to detect the anticoagulant effect of rivaroxaban. The authors ascertained the association of apparent rivaroxaban concentration with thromboelastography reaction time, i.e., time elapsed from blood sample placement in analyzer until beginning of clot formation, as measured using TEG and TEG6S instruments (Haemonetics Corporation, USA), hypothesizing that reaction time would correlate to degree of functional factor Xa impairment.

METHODS

The authors prospectively performed a diagnostic accuracy study comparing coagulation assays to apparent (i.e., indirectly assessed) rivaroxaban concentration in trauma patients with and without preinjury rivaroxaban presenting to a single center between April 2016 and July 2018. Blood samples at admission and after reversal or 24 h postadmission underwent TEG, TEG6S, thrombin generation assay, anti-factor Xa chromogenic assay, prothrombin time (PT), and ecarin chromogenic assay testing. The authors determined correlation of kaolin TEG, TEG6S, and prothrombin time to apparent rivaroxaban concentration. Receiver operating characteristic curve compared capacity to distinguish therapeutic rivaroxaban concentration (i.e., greater than or equal to 50 ng/ml) from nontherapeutic concentrations.

RESULTS

Eighty rivaroxaban patients were compared to 20 controls. Significant strong correlations existed between rivaroxaban concentration and TEG reaction time (ρ = 0.67; P < 0.001), TEG6S reaction time (ρ = 0.68; P < 0.001), and prothrombin time (ρ = 0.73; P < 0.001), however reaction time remained within the defined normal range for the assay. Rivaroxaban concentration demonstrated strong but not significant association with coagulation assays postreversal (n = 9; TEG reaction time ρ = 0.62; P = 0.101; TEG6S reaction time ρ = 0.57; P = 0.112) and small nonsignificant association for controls (TEG reaction time: ρ = -0.04; P = 0.845; TEG6S reaction time: ρ = -0.09; P = 0.667; PT-neoplastine: ρ = 0.19; P = 0.301). Rivaroxaban concentration (area under the curve, 0.91) and TEG6S reaction time (area under the curve, 0.84) best predicted therapeutic rivaroxaban concentration and exhibited similar receiver operating characteristic curves (P = 0.180).

CONCLUSIONS

Although TEG6S demonstrates significant strong correlation with rivaroxaban concentration, values within normal range limit clinical utility rendering rivaroxaban concentration the gold standard in measuring anticoagulant effect.

Three-Factor Versus Four-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for the Emergent Management of Warfarin-Associated Intracranial Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) produce a more rapid and complete INR correction compared with 3-factor PCC in patients receiving warfarin. It is unknown if this improves clinical outcomes in the setting of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included patients presenting with warfarin-associated ICH reversed with either 4- or 3-factor PCC. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, discharge location, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital-free days, INR reversal, and thromboembolic (TE) events at 90 days. Each was analyzed using regression analysis. Continuous and binary outcomes were analyzed using linear and logistic regression, respectively, while ordinal regression was used for discharge location.

RESULTS

Of the 103 patients, 63 received 4-factor PCC. Median age was 79 years [interquartile intervals(IQI 73-84)], median presenting INR was 2.7 (2.2-3.3), and presenting ICH was intraparenchymal in 51% of patients. In-hospital and 30-day mortality were 25 and 35%, respectively. In-hospital mortality was greater among those who received 4-factor PCC, yet was not statistically significant (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.59-9.4, p = 0.26), as having Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤8 explained most of the difference (OR 48, 95% CI 14-219, p <0.001). The effect of 4-factor PCC was not statistically significant in any of the secondary analyses. Crude rates of TE events were higher in the 4-factor PCC group (19 vs. 10%), though not significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital mortality was not improved with the use of 4- versus 3-factor PCC in the emergent reversal of warfarin-associated ICH. Secondary clinical outcomes were similarly nonsignificant.

A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Early Thromboembolic Event Analysis of Prothrombin Complex Concentrate vs Fresh Frozen Plasma for Warfarin Reversal Prior to Emergency Neurosurgical Procedures

BACKGROUND

Reversal of therapeutic anticoagulation prior to emergency neurosurgical procedures is required in the setting of intracranial hemorrhage. Multifactor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) promises rapid efficacy but may increase the probability of thrombotic complications compared to fresh frozen plasma (FFP).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of thrombotic complications in patients treated with PCC or FFP to reverse therapeutic anticoagulation prior to emergency neurosurgical procedures in the setting of intracranial hemorrhage at a level I trauma center.

METHODS

Sixty-three consecutive patients on warfarin therapy presenting with intracranial hemorrhage who received anticoagulation reversal prior to emergency neurosurgical procedures were retrospectively identified between 2007 and 2016. They were divided into 2 cohorts based on reversal agent, either PCC (n = 28) or FFP (n = 35). The thrombotic complications rates within 72 h of reversal were compared using the χ2 test. A multivariate propensity score matching analysis was used to limit the threat to interval validity from selection bias arising from differences in demographics, laboratory values, history, and clinical status.

RESULTS

Thrombotic complications were uncommon in this neurosurgical population, occurring in 1.59% (1/63) of treated patients. There was no significant difference in the thrombotic complication rate between groups, 3.57% (1/28; PCC group) vs 0% (0/35; FFP group). Propensity score matching analysis validated this finding after controlling for any selection bias.

CONCLUSION

In this limited sample, thrombotic complication rates were similar between use of PCC and FFP for anticoagulation reversal in the management of intracranial hemorrhage prior to emergency neurosurgical procedures.

Genetic correlation between Prothrombin G20210A polymorphism and retinal vein occlusion risk

The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis to quantitatively investigate the association between G20210A polymorphism of Prothrombin gene and the risk of retinal vein occlusion (RVO), based on the available publications with inconsistent results. We utilized the Stata software to perform the heterogeneity test, association test, Begg's and Egger's tests, and sensitivity analysis. We searched three on-line databases (PubMed, Embase, and WOS) and obtained a total of 422 articles. Based on our selection criteria, 24 case-control studies were finally enrolled in this overall meta-analysis; a subgroup analysis by the factors ethnicity, control source, and RVO type was done. Through the association test of overall meta-analysis, we did not observe a significant difference between RVO cases and controls under the A vs G (allele) (z=1.49, P=0.137), A vs G (carrier) (z=1.42, P =0.155), GA vs GG (z=1.50, P=0.135), and GA+AA vs GG (z=1.50, P=0.135). Furthermore, we observed similar negative results in the association test of subgroup analysis (all P>0.05). Heterogeneity, Begg's, and Egger's tests excluded the presence of high heterogeneity and publication bias. Statistically stable results were observed in the sensitivity analyses. Based on integrated analysis of the current evidence, Prothrombin gene G20210A polymorphism is likely unrelated to the risk of RVO.

Safety of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) for emergent reversal of factor Xa inhibitors

Background

Although factor Xa inhibitors have become a popular choice for chronic oral anticoagulation, effective drug reversal remains difficult due to a lack of specific antidote. Currently, 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) is considered the treatment of choice for factor Xa inhibitor-related major bleeding. However, safety of 4F-PCC and its risk of thrombosis when used for this off-label purpose remain unclear. The purpose of this retrospective study is to determine the rate of thromboembolism when 4F-PCC is used for the emergent reversal of factor Xa inhibitors.

Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective review of medical records between 2013 and 2017. Patients were included if they received 4F-PCC to reverse rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban for emergent invasive procedures or during episodes of major bleeding defined as bleeding with hemodynamic instability, fall in hemoglobin of 2 g/dL, or bleeding requiring blood transfusion. Thrombotic events including myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, cerebral vascular accident, and arterial thrombosis of the limb or mesentery were recorded if they occurred within 14 days of 4F-PCC administration. Data was analyzed using point and interval estimation to approximate the rate and confidence interval of thromboembolic events.

Results

Forty-three patients were identified in our review. Doses of 4F-PCC were determined by the treating physician and mainly ranged from 25 to 50 IU/kg. Twenty-two patients (51.2%) received both sequential compression devices (SCDs) and subcutaneous heparin for DVT prophylaxis. Twenty-one patients (48.8%) were placed on SCDs only. Three patients received concomitant FFP. Thrombotic events within 14 days of 4F-PCC administration occurred in 1 out of 43 patients (2.1%, 95% CI [0.1–12.3]). This thrombotic event was an upper extremity DVT which occurred 1 day after the patient received 1325 IU (25 IU/kg) of 4F-PCC to reverse rivaroxaban for traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. The patient was taken for emergent decompressive craniotomy after rivaroxaban reversal. In patients who did not undergo surgery or who underwent minor invasive procedures, no thrombotic events were noted.

Conclusion

Based on our preliminary data, the thromboembolic rate of 4F-PCC when given at a dose of 25–50 IU/kg to emergently reverse rivaroxaban and apixaban appears acceptable. Since many patients who require 4F-PCC to emergently reverse factor Xa inhibitors will be at high risk of developing thrombotic events, practitioners should be highly vigilant of these complications. Large, multicenter prospective trials are needed to further determine this risk.

Use of three procoagulants in improving bleeding outcomes in the warfarin patient with intracranial hemorrhage

: When patients on anticoagulation present with intracranial bleeding, stopping the bleeding is paramount. Despite the availability of multiple options to reverse anticoagulation, no study has directly compared the effectiveness of the procoagulants recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa), the rFVIIa and 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) combination, and 4-factor PCC on improving patient outcomes compared with a control. This study examined the medical records of 197 warfarin patients with intracranial hemorrhage, an initial international normalized ratio (INR) greater than 1.5, and who received rFVIIa (26), the combination (84), 4-PCC (50), or no procoagulant, the control group (37). Mortality, length of stay, location discharged, change in INR prior to and postdrug administration, plasma use, and number of thromboembolic complications were used to assess effectiveness. Although INR decreased in all groups (1.31 rFVIIa vs. 2.04 combination vs. 1.41 4-PCC vs. 1.20 control, P = 0.07), the combination group had the greatest percentage to reach an INR of less than 1.3 (46.2 vs. 73.8 vs. 58.0 vs. 43.2%, P = 0.004). The combination and control groups experienced a high, though nonsignificant, number of thromboembolic complications (5.6 vs. 19.0 vs. 7.7 vs. 12.9%, P = 0.533). The rFVIIa group used the most plasma and had the longest length of stay. Mortality did not differ significantly among groups. Although the combination improved INR compared with control, this had a high number of complications. Judicious use of procoagulants is recommended due to their expense and lack of significant improvement in outcomes compared with control.

Prothrombin Complex Concentrates: An Alternative to Fresh Frozen Plasma

Insufficiency fractures are a common cause of morbidity among geriatric patients worldwide. Improved outcomes are known to result from decreased delay to definitive operative fixation and mobilization. Use of warfarin is an important potential cause of delay. The ideal mode of warfarin reversal is currently unknown. Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) offer rapid correction with small infusion volume, both of which are important for elderly patients with multiple comorbidities. The authors present 2 cases of insufficiency fractures occurring in geriatric patients receiving warfarin therapy reversed with a 3-factor PCC. Both patients were independent, community ambulators without significant functional disability and returned to their prior level of functioning. There were no significant bleeding or venous thromboembolic complications. To the authors' knowledge, no previous reports have described the use of PCC in geriatric patients with fractures. Nonetheless, its potential is well documented in emergency and trauma surgery literature. The use of PCC could potentially allow surgeons and hospitals to avoid complications related to immobility and the associated costs of treatment, extended hospital stay, and readmission. The authors' limited experience suggests 3-factor PCC preparations may provide adequate correction to allow expeditious surgical treatment. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(2):e367-e369.].

Retrospective study of rFVIIa, 4-factor PCC, and a rFVIIa and 3-factor PCC combination in improving bleeding outcomes in the warfarin and non-warfarin patient

In case of severe bleeding, the physician must rapidly and effectively halt bleeding without the risk of thromboembolic complications. Despite widespread use, no study has directly compared recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa), the rFVIIa and 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) combination ("combination"), and 4-factor PCC on their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. This study examined the medical records of 299 patients, 65.2% on warfarin prior to admission, who received these hemostatic agents and were admitted to an ICU or through the emergency department at Oregon Health & Science University. Mortality, length of stay, change in international normalized ratio (INR), plasma use, and number of thromboembolic complications were used to assess effectiveness. In patients receiving warfarin, the combination group had the greatest decrease in INR as well as lowest overall INR, but experienced a higher number of clotting complications, while the rFVIIa group used the most plasma. Non-warfarin patients in the combination group had the shortest length of stay among survivors, but the rFVIIa group had the lowest mortality. Based on this data, it may be prudent to further study the use of rFVIIa in treating extreme bleeding in the non-warfarin patient, while this study supports other data that 4-factor PCC may be the most prudent for the warfarin patient. Am. J. Hematol. 91:705-708, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.