Safety and effectiveness of a prothrombin complex concentrate in approved and off-label indications.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) in approved and off-label indications. BACKGROUND: PCCs are approved for the urgent reversal of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Data concerning the efficacy, safety and dosing for off-label indications are limited, but they are included in massive bleeding protocols. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of cases treated with four-factor PCCs (4F-PCCs) between January 2009 and 2016. Efficacy end-points include: (i) VKA reversal efficacy assessed by international normalised ratio (INR) normalisation (<1·5) and (ii) clinical efficacy as bleeding cessation and/or decreased number of transfused blood components and 24-h mortality in bleeding coagulopathy. The safety end-point is the incidence of thromboembolic events. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients were included (51·8% male, median age 78 years old). Indications were as follows: VKA reversal (66·6%), bleeding coagulopathy (30·5%) and direct anticoagulant (DOAC) reversal due to bleeding (2·5%). VKA reversal was effective in 97·1% of patients, and 76·5% demonstrated complete reversal (INR < 1·5); only 34·3% patients needed hemoderivatives. Prior to emergency procedures, PCCs achieved global responses in 83% of patients, with no bleeding complication during intervention. DOAC reversal was effective in 88·9% of patients. Bleeding cessation was associated with the dose administered (P = 0·002). In coagulopathy bleeding, haemorrhage cessation, established by the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostais (ISTH) definition, occurred in 56·7% of massive bleeding events and in 42·5% of other coagulopathies; 24-h mortality was 30%, mainly related to active bleeding. Ten thrombotic episodes were observed (3·1%). CONCLUSION: 4F-PCC was effective as adjuvant treatment with an acceptable safety profile, not only for the emergent reversal of VKAs but also for refractory coagulopathy associated with major bleeding.

Foro de debate: seguridad de las alternativas a la transfusión alogénica en el paciente quirúrgico y/o crítico / Forum for debate: Safety of allogeneic blood transfusion alternatives in the surgical/critically ill patient

Estos últimos años han aparecido alertas de seguridad, no siempre bien sustentadas, que cuestionan el uso de algunas alternativas farmacológicas a la transfusión de sangre alogénica y/o lo restringen en indicaciones establecidas. Asistimos también a la preconización de otras alternativas, incluyendo productos hemáticos y fármacos antifibrinolíticos, sin que haya una base científica sólida que lo justifique. Por iniciativa del Grupo de Estudios Multidisciplinares sobre Autotransfusión y del Anemia Working Group España se reunió a un panel multidisciplinar de 23 expertos del área de cuidados de la salud en un foro de debate para: 1) analizar las diferentes alertas de seguridad en torno a ciertas alternativas a la transfusión; 2) estudiar los antecedentes que las han propiciado, la evidencia que las sustentan y las consecuencias que conllevan para la práctica clínica, y 3) emitir una valoración argumentada de la seguridad de cada alternativa a la transfusión cuestionada, según el uso clínico de la misma. Los integrantes del foro mantuvieron contactos por vía telemática y una reunión presencial en la que presentaron y discutieron las conclusiones sobre cada uno de los elementos examinados. Se elaboró un primer documento que fue sometido a 4 rondas de revisión y actualización hasta alcanzar un consenso, unánime en la mayoría de los casos. Presentamos la versión final del documento, aprobada por todos los miembros del panel, esperando sea de utilidad para nuestros colegas

In recent years, several safety alerts have questioned or restricted the use of some pharmacological alternatives to allogeneic blood transfusion in established indications. In contrast, there seems to be a promotion of other alternatives, based on blood products and/or antifibrinolytic drugs, which lack a solid scientific basis. The Multidisciplinary Autotransfusion Study Group and the Anemia Working Group España convened a multidisciplinary panel of 23 experts belonging to different healthcare areas in a forum for debate to: 1) analyze the different safety alerts referred to certain transfusion alternatives; 2) study the background leading to such alternatives, the evidence supporting them, and their consequences for everyday clinical practice, and 3) issue a weighted statement on the safety of each questioned transfusion alternative, according to its clinical use. The members of the forum maintained telematics contact for the exchange of information and the distribution of tasks, and a joint meeting was held where the conclusions on each of the items examined were presented and discussed. A first version of the document was drafted, and subjected to 4 rounds of review and updating until consensus was reached (unanimously in most cases). We present the final version of the document, approved by all panel members, and hope it will be useful for our colleagues