Comparison of 3-Factor Versus 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate For Emergent Warfarin Reversal: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

Background: Patients requiring emergent warfarin reversal (EWR) have been prescribed three-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC3) and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC4) to reverse the anticoagulant effects of warfarin. There is no existing systematic review and meta-analysis of studies directly comparing PCC3 and PCC4. Methods: The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of achieving study defined target INR goal after PCC3 or PCC4 administration. Secondary objectives were to determine the difference in safety endpoints, thromboembolic events (TE), and survival during the patients’ hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR), and heterogeneity associated with the outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Results: Ten full-text manuscripts and 5 abstracts provided data for the primary and secondary outcomes. Patients requiring emergent warfarin reversal had more than three times the odds of reversal to goal INR when they were given PCC4 compared to PCC3 (OR = 3.61, 95% CI: 1.97-6.60, p < 0.001). There was no meaningful clinical association or statistically significant result between PCC4 and PCC3 groups in TE (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.83-2.91, p = 0.17), or survival during hospital stay (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.81-2.23, p = 0.25). Conclusion: PCC4 is more effective than PCC3 in meeting specific predefined INR goals, and has similar safety profiles in patients requiring emergent reversal of the anticoagulant effects of warfarin.

Comparison of 3-Factor Versus 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Emergent Warfarin Reversal: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Patients requiring emergent warfarin reversal (EWR) have been prescribed three-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC3) and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC4) to reverse the anticoagulant effects of warfarin. There is no existing systematic review and meta-analysis of studies directly comparing PCC3 and PCC4. Methods: The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of achieving study defined target INR goal after PCC3 or PCC4 administration. Secondary objectives were to determine the difference in safety endpoints, thromboembolic events (TE), and survival during the patients’ hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR), and heterogeneity associated with the outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Results: Ten full-text manuscripts and 5 abstracts provided data for the primary and secondary outcomes. Patients requiring emergent warfarin reversal had more than three times the odds of reversal to goal INR when they were given PCC4 compared to PCC3 (OR = 3.61, 95% CI: 1.97-6.60, p < 0.001). There was no meaningful clinical association or statistically significant result between PCC4 and PCC3 groups in TE (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.83-2.91, p = 0.17), or survival during hospital stay (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.81-2.23, p = 0.25). Conclusion: PCC4 is more effective than PCC3 in meeting specific predefined INR goals, and has similar safety profiles in patients requiring emergent reversal of the anticoagulant effects of warfarin.

Evaluation of a Fixed-Dose Regimen of 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Warfarin Reversal

Background: Fixed-dose (FD) regimens of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) may be effective for the emergent reversal of warfarin; however, the optimal dosing is unknown. Our institution transitioned to a FD regimen of 1000 or 2000 units of 4F-PCC based on indication. Objective: The purpose of this study is to report our experience with FD 4F-PCC compared with a historical weight-based dosing cohort for warfarin reversal. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted for 3 groups: central nervous system (CNS) bleeds regardless of international normalized ratio (INR), non-CNS bleeds with an initial INR ≤6, and non-CNS bleeds with an initial INR ≥6.1. The primary outcome of the study was achievement of the target INR. Results: There were 54 patients with a CNS bleed, 153 with a non-CNS bleed and INR ≤6, and 19 with a non-CNS bleed and INR ≥6.1. In the CNS bleeding group, weight-based and FD achieved target INR 79.4% and 70% ( P = 0.52). In the INR ≥6.1 non-CNS bleeding group, weight-based and FD achieved target INR 100% and 70% ( P = 0.21). In the INR ≤6 non-CNS bleeding group, weight-based and FD achieved target INR 86.4% and 57.5% ( P = 0.0002). Conclusion and Relevance: An FD strategy of 2000 units for warfarin reversal for CNS bleeds or INR ≥6.1 was comparable to weight-based dosing. The FD strategy of 1000 units for INR ≤6 achieved target INR less often than weight-based dosing. Application of findings suggest that higher doses may be needed to achieve target INR.