Intraoperative prothrombin complex concentrate administration and outcomes in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation

An ISHLT consensus statement on strategies to prevent and manage hemocompatibility related adverse events in patients with a durable, continuous-flow ventricular assist device

Life expectancy of patients with a durable, continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) continues to increase. Despite significant improvements in the delivery of care for patients with these devices, hemocompatability-related adverse events (HRAEs) are still a concern and contribute to significant morbility and mortality when they occur. As such, dissemination of current best evidence and practices is of critical importance. This ISHLT Consensus Statement is a summative assessment of the current literature on prevention and management of HRAEs through optimal management of oral anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications, parenteral anticoagulant medications, management of patients at high risk for HRAEs and those experiencing thrombotic or bleeding events, and device management outside of antithrombotic medications. This document is intended to assist clinicians caring for patients with a CF-LVAD provide the best care possible with respect to prevention and management of these events.

Four-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate in Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Inverse Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis

We compare the effect of intraoperative administration of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) on major bleeding, transfusions, and complications. Out of 138 patients undergoing left ventricle assist device (LVAD) implantation, 32 received PCCs as first-line hemostatic agents and 102 FFP (standard group). The crude treatment estimates indicated that, compared with the standard group, the PCC group required more FFP units (odds ratio [OR]: 4.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.58-11; p = 0.004) intraoperatively, whereas a greater number of patients received FFP at 24 hours (OR: 3.01, 95% CI: 1.19-7.59; p = 0.021) and less packed red blood cells (RBC) at 48 hours (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.01-1.21; p = 0.046). After the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted analyses, in the PCC group there was still a higher number of patients who required FFP (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.02-8.25; p = 0.048) or RBC (OR: 6.23, 95% CI: 1.67-23.14; p = 0.007] at 24 hours and RBC at 48 hours (OR: 3.09, 95% CI: 0.89-10.76; p = 0.007). Adverse events and survival were similar before and after the ITPW adjustment. In conclusion, the PCCs, although relatively safe with respect to thrombotic events, were not associated with a reduction of major bleeding and blood product transfusions.

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.

Prothrombin Complex Concentrate vs Plasma for Post-Cardiopulmonary Bypass Coagulopathy and Bleeding: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Post-cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) coagulopathy and bleeding are among the most common reasons for blood product transfusion in surgical practices. Current retrospective data suggest lower transfusion rates and blood loss in patients receiving prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with plasma after cardiac surgery.

Objective

To analyze perioperative bleeding and transfusion outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who develop microvascular bleeding and receive treatment with either PCC or plasma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A single-institution, prospective, randomized clinical trial performed at a high-volume cardiac surgical center. Patients were aged 18 years or older and undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. Patients undergoing complex cardiac surgical procedures (eg, aortic replacement surgery, multiple procedures, or repeated sternotomy) were preferentially targeted for enrollment. During the study period, 756 patients were approached for enrollment, and 553 patients were randomized. Of the 553 randomized patients, 100 patients met criteria for study intervention.

Interventions

Patients with excessive microvascular bleeding, a prothombin time (PT) greater than 16.6 seconds, and an international normalized ratio (INR) greater than 1.6 were randomized to receive treatment with either PCC or plasma. The PCC dose was 15 IU/kg or closest standardized dose; the plasma dose was a suggested volume of 10 to 15 mL/kg rounded to the nearest unit.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was postoperative bleeding (chest tube output) from the initial postsurgical intensive care unit admission through midnight on postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes were PT/INR, rates of intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion after treatment, avoidance of allogeneic transfusion from the intraoperative period to the end of postoperative day 1, postoperative bleeding, and adverse events.

Results

One hundred patients (mean [SD] age, 66.8 [13.7] years; 61 [61.0%] male; and 1 [1.0%] Black, 1 [1.0%] Hispanic, and 98 [98.0%] White) received the study intervention (49 plasma and 51 PCC). There was no significant difference in chest tube output between the plasma and PCC groups (median [IQR], 1022 [799-1575] mL vs 937 [708-1443] mL). After treatment, patients in the PCC arm had a greater improvement in PT (effect estimate, -1.37 seconds [95% CI, -1.91 to -0.84]; P < .001) and INR (effect estimate, -0.12 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.07]; P < .001). Fewer patients in the PCC group required intraoperative RBC transfusion after treatment (7 of 51 patients [13.7%] vs 15 of 49 patients [30.6%]; P = .04); total intraoperative transfusion rates were not significantly different between groups. Seven (13.7%) of 51 patients receiving PCCs avoided allogeneic transfusion from the intraoperative period to the end of postoperative day 1 vs none of those receiving plasma. There were no significant differences in postoperative bleeding, transfusions, or adverse events.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this study suggest a similar overall safety and efficacy profile for PCCs compared with plasma in this clinical context, with fewer posttreatment intraoperative RBC transfusions, improved PT/INR correction, and higher likelihood of allogeneic transfusion avoidance in patients receiving PCCs.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02557672.

Coagulation and Transfusion Updates From 2021

2021 and the COVID 19 pandemic have brought unprecedented blood shortages worldwide. These deficits have propelled national efforts to reduce blood usage, including limiting elective services and accelerating Patient Blood Management (PBM) initiatives. A host of research dedicated to blood usage and management within cardiac surgery has continued to emerge. The intent of this review is to highlight this past year's research pertaining to PBM and COVID-19-related coagulation changes.

Use of plasma late on cardiopulmonary bypass in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation

Coagulopathy is common during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, treatment of which can be challenging given the often-limited ability for the right ventricle to accommodate volume transfusion after device initiation with 20% to 40% of patients developing right ventricular failure (RVF). Transfusion of plasma late on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) combined with ultrafiltration may replace clotting factors while reducing volume administration. We compared outcomes in patients undergoing LVAD implantation receiving plasma on CPB and ultrafiltration with traditional transfusion practices. Co-primary outcomes needed for blood product transfusion in the first 6 and 24 hours after CPB. Secondary outcomes included metrics of morbidity and mortality. 396 patients were analyzed (59 plasma on CPB). Patients receiving plasma on CPB had a greater volume of blood products transfused (3764 vs. 2741 mL first 6 hours; 6059 vs. 4305 mL first 24 hours) in unadjusted analysis. In adjusted analysis, plasma transfusion on CPB with ultrafiltration had no significant effect on the primary outcomes of blood products given in the first 6 hours (estimated effect size 982 [-428, 2392] mL, P = .17) and 24 hours (estimated effect size 1076 [-904, 3057] mL, P = .29). Patients receiving plasma on CPB were more likely on either vasopressors or inotropes at 24 hours after ICU admission (P = .01), however, indices of coagulopathy and RVF were similar between groups. While prospective studies would be necessary to definitively evaluate the clinical utility of this strategy, no signal for benefit was observed suggesting plasma should not be used for this purpose.