Key result
A survey of 429 US critical care pharmacists found that 4-factor PCCs were preferred by 93% of institutions, with off-label use being common and variable practices driven by differing perceptions.
Why the study?
Prothrombin complex concentrates are frequently used, but practices and perceptions regarding the use of proprietary and nonproprietary formulations needed elucidation.
Cross-Sectional (n=429)
Yes
Off-label use of PCCs is common, with variable practices driven by differing perceptions of indications, contraindications, and comparisons to blood products.
Pharmacist survey reveals variable PCC perceptions versus blood products; leaves open need for standardized protocols and comparative trials.
BACKGROUND: Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) are frequently used. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate practices and perceptions of proprietary and nonproprietary PCCs use. METHODS: An electronic pretested cross-sectional survey e-mailed thrice to 1 critical care pharmacist at 1170 US institutions. Questions addressed hospital and pharmacy characteristics, use of PCCs, and perceptions of effectiveness and safety. RESULTS: 429 (39.5%) of 1086 eligible institutions completed the questionnaire. PCCs were used several times per month to several times per week (62.6%). An order set was routinely or always used to direct PCCs usage at 66.4% of institutions. Four-factor PCCs were preferred by 93% of institutions. The most common perceived indications for 4-factor PCCs were hemorrhage related to warfarin (92.1%) or oral Xa inhibitors (81.8%), intracranial hemorrhage (78.4%), trauma hemorrhage (66.2%), surgical hemorrhage (61.1%), and refractory hemorrhage (57.3%). The most common perceived contraindications were heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (42%), disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (39.2%), and active thromboembolism (38.9%). Most institutions considered patient weight (78.8%), indication (77.6%), and International Normalized Ratio (76.9%) when dosing PCCs. Only 43.8% of institutions used fixed dose, only 19.6% compounded PCCs at the bedside, and only 11.9% administered PCCs by rapid infusion. Compared to standard blood products, respondents believed PCCs acted more rapidly, were less likely to cause volume issues, and were more expensive. Respondents were neutral about PCCs acting longer, being more effective at preventing or treating hemorrhage, or causing thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: Off-label use of PCCs is common. Differing perceptions surrounding indications, contraindications, and comparisons to blood products/procoagulants likely contribute to variable practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Curry et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Prothrombin complex concentrates use (n=429). Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) vs. Standard blood products was evaluated on Practices and perceptions of proprietary and nonproprietary PCCs use. A survey of 429 US critical care pharmacists found that 4-factor PCCs were preferred by 93% of institutions, with off-label use being common and variable practices driven by differing perceptions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: