Comparison of blood product use and costs with use of 3-factor versus 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for off-label indications.

PURPOSE: Results of a comparison of blood product use and cost outcomes with use of 3-factor versus 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) for indications other than warfarin reversal are presented. METHODS: Consecutive patients who received 3-factor PPC (PCC3) or 4-factor PCC (PCC4) for non-warfarin-related indications at 2 U.S. hospitals during a 19-month period were identified. The primary outcome was in-hospital blood product use, with a focus on plasma use. Total hemostasis costs, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, and other outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Indications for PCC3 use (n = 118) or PCC4 use (n = 64) included intraoperative bleeding, nonintraoperative bleeding, coagulopathy of liver disease, and reversal of direct-acting oral anticoagulant effects. The proportion of patients who received plasma was 56.8% with PCC3 use versus 53.1% with PCC4 use (p = 0.643); the corresponding median volumes of plasma received were 638 mL (interquartile range [IQR], 550-1,355 mL) and 656 mL (IQR, 532-1,136 mL), respectively. The median total hemostasis costs were $5,559 (IQR, $3,922-$8,159) with PCC3 use and $7,771 (IQR, $6,366-$9,205) with PCC4 use (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PCC3 use and PCC4 use were associated with similar blood product use, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality when given for non-warfarin-related indications. However, relative to PCC3 use, PCC4 use was associated with an increase in costs that was primarily due to drug costs.

Comparison of 3-Factor Versus 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate With Regard to Warfarin Reversal, Blood Product Use, and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) are drug products containing varying amounts of vitamin K-dependent coagulation factors II, VII, IX, and X. The evidence comparing 3-factor PCC (3-PCC) versus 4-factor PCC (4-PCC) for warfarin reversal is conflicting. It has been hypothesized that 3-PCC may be less effective than 4-PCC because of relatively lower factor VII content. STUDY QUESTION: The primary objective of this study was to compare international normalized ratio (INR) reversal between 3-PCC and 4-factor PCC (4-PCC) in warfarin-treated patients. The secondary objectives include comparing blood product use, total reversal costs, and cost-effectiveness between the groups. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in 2 affiliated, academic institutions in the United States. Consecutive adult patients who received 3-PCC or 4-PCC for warfarin reversal were included. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was adequate INR reversal defined as a final INR ≤1.5. Secondary outcomes were the utilization of plasma, red blood cells and platelets, reversal costs, and the cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: There were 89 patients who were included in the overall cohort (3-PCC = 57, 4-PCC = 32). Adequate INR reversal occurred less commonly with 3-PCC (45.6%) compared with 4-PCC (87.5%) (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who received plasma (32% vs. 28%, P = 0.813), red blood cells (37% vs. 47%, P = 0.377), or platelets (16% vs. 28%, P = 0.180) between the 3-PCC and 4-PCC groups, respectively. The median reversal cost of 3-PCC ($3663) was lower than 4-PCC ($5105) (P = 0.001). The cost-effective ratio favored 4-PCC ($5105/87.5% = $5834) compared with 3-PCC ($3663/45.6% = $8033). CONCLUSIONS: Four-PCC was more effective than 3-PCC with regard to INR reversal in patients taking warfarin, but blood product use was similar. Although 4-PCC is associated with increased reversal costs, it may be cost-effective in terms of INR reversal.

Risk-assessment and pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with chronic liver disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of evidence regarding the need for thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with liver disease. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Padua Predictor Score (PPS) as a risk-stratification tool for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with chronic liver disease. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in an academic medical center in the United States. Consecutive adult patients admitted with chronic liver disease were included. Patients were categorized into two groups based on whether they developed a VTE or not. The risk for VTE in each patient was evaluated using the Padua Predictor Score (PPS). Patients were risk stratified using the PPS score as high-risk (score ≥4) and low-risk (score <4). The risk of VTE based on PPS categorization was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients with liver disease were included in the study cohort. Of these, 18 (11%) developed VTE. Mean PPS was significantly greater in the VTE group than the non-VTE group (5.8 ± 2.0 versus 3.0 ± 2.1, respectively; p<0.001). In high-risk patients 22% (n=16/72) developed VTE and in low-risk patients 2% (2/91) developed VTE (p<0.001). High-risk patients were more likely to have VTE (OR 12.7, 95% CI 2.8 to 57.4, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The PPS is an effective risk assessment tool for VTE in patients hospitalized with chronic liver disease.