Key result
3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate demonstrated no significant difference in hemostatic effectiveness compared to 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for reversing oral factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding (85.0% vs 82.8%, adjusted OR 1.38).
Why the study?
Multiple agents exist for reversing oral FXa inhibitor-associated bleeding, and Profilnine (a 3F-PCC containing some Factor VII) has shown similar effects on prothrombin time and blood product usage in non-warfarin bleeding.
Does 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate provide similar hemostatic effectiveness compared to 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in adult patients with major bleeding associated with oral FXa inhibitors?
Observational (n=125)
Yes
Does 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate provide similar hemostatic effectiveness compared to 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in adult patients with major bleeding associated with oral FXa inhibitors?
Odds Ratio: 1.38 (95% CI 0.41–4.6)
Absolute Event Rate: 85% vs 82.8%
p-value: p=0.81
In a retrospective multicenter study, 3F-PCC demonstrated similar hemostatic effectiveness and safety compared to 4F-PCC for the reversal of oral FXa inhibitor-associated bleeding.
May support Profilnine as FXa reversal option; leaves open need for randomized outcome trials.
Multiple agents exist for the reversal of oral Factor Xa inhibitor (FXa) associated bleeding, including Coagulation FXa Recombinant, Inactivated zhzo (andexanet alfa) and 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC). While classified as a 3F-PCC product, Profilnine contains up to 35 IU of Factor VII (per 100 IU of Factor IX) in addition to therapeutic levels of Factors II, IX, and X, and has demonstrated a similar impact on prothrombin time and blood product usage in non-warfarin related bleeding. This was a retrospective, multicenter study at four medical centers of adult patients who presented with major bleeding associated with oral FXa inhibitors and received either 4F-PCC (n = 64) or 3F-PCC (n = 61). The primary outcome was hemostatic effectiveness. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thromboembolism, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay. The most common indication for reversal was intracranial bleeding. For the primary outcome, 84% of all patients were rated as effective with no difference noted between the groups (p = 0.81). No significant difference between groups was found in the multivariable analysis adjusting for baseline differences between groups including race, total body weight, type of bleeding, and the use of antiplatelet therapy. There was no difference in the length of stay, in-hospital mortality, or the incidence of thromboembolism between the groups. Overall, no significant differences were found in the effectiveness or safety of 4F-PCC and 3F-PCC use in the management of oral FXa inhibitor-associated bleeding. Further investigations are warranted to explore the use of 3F-PCC for this indication and its safety and effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hays et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Major bleeding associated with oral factor Xa inhibitors (n=125). 3-Factor prothrombin complex concentrate (3F-PCC) vs. 4-Factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) was evaluated on Hemostatic effectiveness (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.41-4.60, p=0.81). 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate demonstrated no significant difference in hemostatic effectiveness compared to 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for reversing oral factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding (85.0% vs 82.8%, adjusted OR 1.38).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: