Use Of Prothrombin Complex Concentrates In Patients With Hepatic Coagulopathy: A Single Center Retrospective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The National Advisory Committee on Blood and Blood Products (NAC) of Canada (Canadian Blood Services) do not recommend the use of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) in patients with liver disease except in selected circumstances. There is a concern about their potential association with thromboembolic events in this patients’ population. The Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) is a major reference center in hepatology and liver transplantation in Quebec, Canada. PCC have been used in selected patients with liver disease in this center. This study aims to analyze the efficacy and security of this use. Methods A retrospective study was conducted by reviewing the medical records of all patients with liver disease who received PCC at the CHUM between January 1st 2009 and December 31st 2012. During this time period, only 2 four-factor PCCs (Octaplex, Octapharma AG, Switzerland and Beriplex, CSL Behring, USA) were available for use. Adequate dose of PCC was based on NAC recommendations according to the INR (1000 UI for INR <3; 2000 UI for INR 3-5; 3000 UI for INR >5). We collected the INR before and after the administration of PCC and searched for adverse events. Bleeding control was defined by: cessation of bleeding, absence of rebleeding, absence of surgical intervention for hemostasis, and absence of decrease in hemoglobin level 24h post PCC (more than 1g/dL). Results A total of 51 patients were included. Median age was 57 (range; 19-90) and 63% were male (32/51). Forty-one patients (80%) had cirrhosis and nine (18%) had acute liver failure. The status of liver disease could not be determined for one patient. Among patients with cirrhosis, 10 were classified as Child-Pugh A (24%), 13 as Child-Pugh B (32%), and 18 as Child-Pugh C (44%). Ten patients were taking warfarin. Twenty-eight patients (55%) received PCC for bleeding and 20 patients (39%) received PCC before an invasive procedure. Adequate dose of PCC was used in 28 patients (55%). Thirty-one patients (61%) had an INR done within 6 hours of PCC administration. Seventeen patients (33%) had an INR done at 30 minutes and 40 patients (78%) at six hours after PCC administration. The INR was corrected to ≤1.3 in 5 patients (10%) and to ≤1.8 in 30 patients (61%). Eight of ten patients (80%) corrected their INR in the Child-Pugh A group, compared to 10 of 13 (77%) in the Child-Pugh B group, 10 of 17 (59%) in the Child-Pugh C group and 2 of 9 (22%) in the acute liver failure group. Significantly less patients with Child-Pugh C cirrhosis and acute hepatic failure corrected their INR to ≤1.8 when compared to patients with Child-Pugh A and B cirrhosis (p=0.02; chi-square test). Control of bleeding was achieved in 32% of patients (9/28) who received PCC for this indication. Of those patients, the bleeding was controlled in 22% of patients (4/18) when the INR was corrected to ≤1.8 and 44% of patients (4/9) when the INR was not corrected to ≤1.8. Three patients (6%) had thromboembolic events after receiving PCC. One had infectious mitral endocarditis and multiple systemic embolisms, one had a portal vein thrombosis three days after splenectomy, and one had a hepatic artery and portal vein thrombosis after liver transplantation but was know to have a mutation of JAK2. Four patients (8%) died within 24 hours of PCC administration but all the deaths were related to an underlying condition. Conclusion Our study showed that in patients with hepatic coagulopathy only a minority of bleeding events were controlled by the administration of PCC. This study did not show an association between the correction of INR and the efficacy of PCC to control bleeding. PCC is less effective in patients with Child-Pugh C cirrhosis and acute liver failure. This might be due to deficit in coagulation factors such as factor V and fibrinogen that are not supplemented by PCC. Bleeding associated with hepatic coagulopathy is complex and the role of PCC requires further evaluation in regards to other blood products utilization and interventions. Some thromboembolic events and deaths occurred after PCC administration warranting further studies of these agents in different disorders of hemostasis. Disclosures: Blais: Leo: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».