Retrospective study of rFVIIa, 4-factor PCC, and a rFVIIa and 3-factor PCC combination in improving bleeding outcomes in the warfarin and non-warfarin patient

15Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In case of severe bleeding, the physician must rapidly and effectively halt bleeding without the risk of thromboembolic complications. Despite widespread use, no study has directly compared recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa), the rFVIIa and 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) combination (“combination”), and 4-factor PCC on their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. This study examined the medical records of 299 patients, 65.2% on warfarin prior to admission, who received these hemostatic agents and were admitted to an ICU or through the emergency department at Oregon Health & Science University. Mortality, length of stay, change in international normalized ratio (INR), plasma use, and number of thromboembolic complications were used to assess effectiveness. In patients receiving warfarin, the combination group had the greatest decrease in INR as well as lowest overall INR, but experienced a higher number of clotting complications, while the rFVIIa group used the most plasma. Non-warfarin patients in the combination group had the shortest length of stay among survivors, but the rFVIIa group had the lowest mortality. Based on this data, it may be prudent to further study the use of rFVIIa in treating extreme bleeding in the non-warfarin patient, while this study supports other data that 4-factor PCC may be the most prudent for the warfarin patient. Am. J. Hematol. 91:705–708, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

DeLoughery, E., Avery, B., & DeLoughery, T. G. (2016). Retrospective study of rFVIIa, 4-factor PCC, and a rFVIIa and 3-factor PCC combination in improving bleeding outcomes in the warfarin and non-warfarin patient. American Journal of Hematology, 91(7), 705–708. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.24384

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free