Why the study?
Does a fixed 1000 IU dose of PCC compared to variable dosing achieve target INR ≤ 1.5 in patients with VKA-related intracranial hemorrhage?
Does a fixed 1000 IU dose of PCC compared to variable dosing achieve target INR ≤ 1.5 in patients with VKA-related intracranial hemorrhage?
A fixed 1000 IU dose of PCC is less effective than variable dosing at achieving a target INR ≤ 1.5 after a single dose in patients with VKA-related intracranial hemorrhage, requiring more frequent additional infusions.
Fixed 1000 IU PCC may fail to reach target INR as often as variable dosing; leaves open optimal reversal strategy in VKA-related ICH.
BACKGROUND: Millions of patients receive vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy worldwide. Annually 0.2-1 % of all VKA users develops an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) is administered to restore the INR ≤ 1.5 in an attempt to limit hematoma growth. In order to facilitate PCC dosing, our hospital recently changed from a variable dose based on bodyweight, baseline- and target-INR, to a fixed 1000 IU fIX PCC dosing protocol for ICH. METHODS: In a before and after design, we compared successful achievement of an INR ≤ 1.5 with a fixed dosing strategy versus the variable dosing strategy of PCC in patients presenting with intracranial bleeding complications of VKA. Data of the two cohorts of patients were retrospectively collected from medical records. RESULTS: A median dosage of 1750 IU was given per patient in the variable dose group (n = 25) versus 1000 IU in the fixed dose group (n = 28). In the intention-to-treat analysis, 96 % achieved an INR ≤ 1.5 after an initial dose in the variable dose cohort compared to 68 % in the fixed dose cohort (p = 0.01). An additional dose was given in 2 (8 %) versus 9 (32 %) patients, respectively (p = 0.04). The median door-to-PCC-order time was 42 versus 32 min (p = 0.37) and the door-to-needle time was 81, respectively 60 min (p = 0.42). CONCLUSION: The fixed dose protocol necessitates additional PCC infusions more frequently to achieve a target INR ≤ 1.5. Door-to-order and door-to-needle time were shorter but, in this small cohort, not significantly so. The effect on clinical outcome remains unknown.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdoellakhan et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: