MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W950652435 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.3639.3639

A Systematic Review On Different Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Strategies To Reverse Vitamin K Antagonist Therapy

2013· review· en· W950652435 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nakisa Khorsand, Hilde Kooistra, Reinier M. van Hest, D Pharm, Nic J.G.M. Veeger, Karina Meijer

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineVitamin K antagonistProthrombin complex concentrateDosingMEDLINERetrospective cohort studyProspective cohort studyInternal medicineClinical trialVitamin kCohort studyPediatricsIntensive care medicineWarfarin

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Management of patients with a major bleed while on vitamin K antagonist (VKA) is a common clinical challenge. Prothrombin Complex Concentrates (PCC) provide a rapid reversal of VKA induced coagulopathy. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the currently used PCC strategies and to present their efficacy in terms of target INR achievement and clinical outcome. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies reporting the use of PCC for emergency reversal of VKA therapy. Additional inclusion criteria were the reporting of PCC dosing strategy, data on target INR or any clinical outcome or safety parameters, prospective patient enrollment, and a full text publication. All PCC studies in non-VKA patients, case-reports (N<5), duplicates, retrospective studies, and studies on activated PCC were excluded. The quality of selected studies was evaluated using two quality assessment tools which are described by Downs (J Epidemiol Community Health, 1998), and Thomas (McMaster University, 2008). A total of 27 studies was included in which the majority was single cohort (N=18, 67%), open label (N=27, 100%), and/or nonrandomized (N=23, 85%). The total number of included patients was 2410, ranging from 5 to 686 patients per study. One of the included studies was scored as having a strong, 12 a moderate and 14 a weak design. The median quality assessment score was 16 out of 26 [range 10-22]. A large heterogeneity in study parameters was observed including 6 different primary endpoints with 12 different definitions. Fifteen PCC protocols were identified in which the PCC dose ranged from 8 to 50 IU of factor IX/kg or a fixed dose protocol of 200, 500, 1000, or 1500 IU of factor IX/patient. These dosing strategies were based on five principals, namely based on bodyweight (BW), bodyweight and initial INR (BW+INRi), bodyweight and initial INR and target INR (BW+INRi+INRt), individual doctors decision (doctor) or a fixed dose (fixed). The actual infused dosage is depicted in figure 1. Evaluating the used dosing strategy, target INR was reached in 86%, 81%, 78% and 75% of patient in BW, BW+INRi, BW+INRi+INRt and fixed, respectively and was lower (55%) in doctor strategy. Of note, results of the doctor strategy are based on two studies. Clinical outcome was positive for 75%, 93%, 85%, 88% and 67% of patients in strategy BW, BW+INRi, BW+INRi+INRt, fixed, and doctor strategy respectively. Of note, only one study reported on the clinical outcome in the BW+INRi strategy and two in doctor strategy. While our review shows a great diversity on PCC dosing strategies among published data, the same applies to current PCC guidelines in which the ACCP leaves the dosing to the discretion of the physician, the French guidelines recommend a bodyweight adjusted dosing regardless of the INR, the Canadian guidelines recommend three different fixed doses stratified by initial INR, and the Australian guidelines recommend a range of bodyweight adjusted doses from which the physician should decide. Apart from the different dosing strategies, considerable heterogeneity in assessing the impact of PCC treatment was noticed indicating the lack of consensus regarding different aspects of emergency reversal of VKA treatment e.g. optimal target INR, clinical outcome definition. Furthermore, PCC is predominantly studied in small, single-arm and open label settings using the INR to measure its effect rather than clinical outcome. In addition, results from our quality assessment showed that most study designs were at most moderately robust. Evidence gained from the included studies should therefore be interpreted with caution. In conclusion, this review shows that the worst results are reported when a predefined dosing protocol is absent (doctors strategy), while with the use of any treatment protocol good outcome results of PCC treatment are obtained (target INR reached ³ 75%, positive clinical response ³ 75%). A fixed dose strategy seems to be the most simple treatment, with a high potential for optimal clinical outcome while the lowest PCC dosages are infused. Good quality studies with consistent endpoints are needed to guide clinical use. Actual median dose infused in each study(arm). Dots represent the included studies(cohorts) with large, average and small amount of included patients Disclosures: Khorsand: Sanquin BV, Amsterdam: Research Funding.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,042

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,010
Bibliométrie0,0110,011
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,064
Tête enseignante GPT0,345
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→