A pragmatic pilot phase II randomised controlled trial of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in adult patients who are undergoing heart surgery (PROPHESY)

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Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch/), for ongoing or unpublished trials.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

The use of FEIBA for refractory bleeding in cardiac surgery - a systematic review

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.

Prothrombin complex concentrate vs. fresh frozen plasma in adult patients undergoing heart surgery - a pilot randomised controlled trial (PROPHESY trial)

There is equipoise regarding the use of prothrombin complex concentrate vs. fresh frozen plasma in bleeding patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a pilot randomised controlled trial to determine the recruitment rate for a large trial, comparing the impact of prothrombin complex concentrate vs. fresh frozen plasma on haemostasis (1 h and 24 h post-intervention), and assessing safety. Adult patients who developed bleeding within 24 h of cardiac surgery that required coagulation factor replacement were randomly allocated to receive prothrombin complex concentrate (15 IU.kg^-1 based on factor IX) or fresh frozen plasma (15 ml.kg^-1 ). If bleeding continued after the first administration of prothrombin complex concentrate or fresh frozen plasma administration, standard care was administered. From February 2019 to October 2019, 180 patients were screened, of which 134 (74.4% (95%CI 67-81%)) consented, 59 bled excessively and 50 were randomly allocated; 25 in each arm, recruitment rate 35% (95%CI 27-44%). There were 23 trial protocol deviations, 137 adverse events (75 prothrombin complex concentrate vs. 62 fresh frozen plasma) and 18 serious adverse events (5 prothrombin complex concentrate vs. 13 fresh frozen plasma). There was no increase in thromboembolic events with prothrombin complex concentrate. No patient withdrew from the study, four were lost to follow-up and two died. At 1 h after administration of the intervention there was a significant increase in fibrinogen, Factor V, Factor XII, Factor XIII, α₂ -antiplasmin and antithrombin levels in the fresh frozen plasma arm, while Factor II and Factor X were significantly higher in the prothrombin complex concentrate group. At 24 h, there were no significant differences in clotting factor levels. We conclude that recruitment to a larger study is feasible. Haemostatic tests have provided useful insight into the haemostatic changes following prothrombin complex concentrate or fresh frozen plasma administration. A definitive trial is needed to ascertain the benefits and safety for each.