Prophylactic fresh frozen plasma versus prothrombin complex concentrate for preprocedural management of the coagulopathy of liver disease: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The optimal prophylactic preprocedural management of patients with coagulopathy due to liver disease is not known. Objectives: Our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) with prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) in the preprocedural management of patients with coagulopathy of liver disease. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to examine published evidence regarding treatment with FFP or PCC in adults with coagulopathy of liver disease undergoing an invasive procedure. Direct comparisons and single-arm studies were eligible. Efficacy outcomes included major bleeding, mortality, and correction of prothrombin time (PT) and/or international normalized ratio (INR). Safety outcomes included thrombosis and transfusion-related complications. Results: A total of 95 articles were identified for full-text review. Nine studies were eligible and included in the review. No randomized trials comparing FFP versus PCC were identified. Only two studies directly compared FFP versus PCC. In these studies, PCC appeared to result in higher rates of correction of PT/INR, but bleeding outcomes were not different. In the single-arm studies, bleeding events appeared low overall. Volume overload was the most common recorded adverse event in patients receiving FFP. Thromboembolic events occurred rarely, but exclusively in the PCC group. Due to heterogeneity in study definitions and bias, meta-analysis was not possible. Our study found no evidence to favor a specific product over another. Conclusions: Insufficient data exist on the effects of FFP versus PCC administration before invasive procedures in patients with coagulopathy of liver disease to make conclusions with respect to relative efficacy or safety.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".