Why the study?
Uncertainty remains regarding the hemostatic effectiveness and thrombotic risk of 4F-PCC for direct-acting oral anticoagulants, particularly in patients with intracranial hemorrhage.
Does a low-dose protocol of 25 units/kg 4F-PCC improve hemostasis in adult patients with DOAC-associated intracranial hemorrhage?
Does a low-dose protocol of 25 units/kg 4F-PCC improve hemostasis in adult patients with DOAC-associated intracranial hemorrhage?
A low-dose protocol of 25 units/kg 4F-PCC achieved high rates of hemostasis (94.7%) in patients with DOAC-associated intracranial hemorrhage, with a 9.1% rate of thromboembolic events.
May support lower-dose 4F-PCC feasibility in DOAC-ICH; leaves open optimal dosing, efficacy, and safety pending prospective trials.
PURPOSE: Current guidelines favor 4F-PCC over plasma for reversal of warfarin. Uncertainty remains on the hemostatic effectiveness and thrombotic risk of 4F-PCC for direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), particularly in patients with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a lower dose protocol of 25 units/kg 4F-PCC for the management of DOAC-associated ICH in a real-world setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of adult patients who received at least one dose of 4F-PCC from March 2014 to December 2015 for DOAC-associated ICH. The primary outcome was hemostatic effectiveness within 24 hours. The secondary outcome was thromboembolic events within 14 days. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients received 4F-PCC for DOAC-associated ICH and were included in the analysis. Hemostasis was evaluable in 19 patients with post-4F-PCC imaging available and occurred in 18/19 (94.7%) patients. Thromboembolism occurred in 2 out of 22 patients (9.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a lower dose protocol of 25 units/kg of 4F-PCC resulted in high rates of hemostasis in patients with DOAC-associated ICH. Two patients developed thrombotic events within 14 days of 4F-PCC administration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berger et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: