Prothrombin Complex Concentrate for Major Bleeding on Factor Xa Inhibitors: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oral factor Xa inhibitors are increasingly used for anticoagulation, but there is no approved reversal agent. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) for the management of Xa-inhibitor–associated bleeding has been described in small case series and one cohort study. Patients on apixaban or rivaroxaban, suffering a major bleed, were treated at nine Canadian hospitals as per existing hospital protocol with a fixed dose of PCC 2,000 units and subsequently recruited for a 30-day follow-up. The treating physician evaluated the haemostatic effectiveness as observed during the first day as good, moderate or poor/none, using an assessment guide. Safety outcomes were thromboembolism or death. We recruited 66 patients with major bleeding who were treated with PCC and who were receiving rivaroxaban (56%) or apixaban (44%). The effectiveness was assessed as good in 65% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53–77), moderate in 20% (95% CI, 10–30) and poor/none in 15% (95% CI, 6–24). For the 36 patients with intracranial haemorrhage, the corresponding ratings were 67, 17 and 17%, and for 16 patients with gastrointestinal bleeding they were 69, 12 and 19%, respectively. There were nine deaths (14%) by 30 days, and five (8%) major thromboembolic events. In a post hoc analysis, according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, reversal was effective in 68% and ineffective in 32%. For major bleeding associated with oral Xa inhibitors, PCC may have a beneficial effect. The risk of thromboembolism after reversal of anticoagulation in patients with a prothrombotic background has to be taken into account.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".