Will prothrombin complex concentrate replace plasma in cardiac surgical bleeding in North America?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is increasing interest in four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) for treatment of acquired coagulopathic bleeding in cardiac surgery. Plasma, traditionally the treatment of choice, has a different composition compared with 4F-PCC. This review summarizes the current evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: Because of its rapid reconstitution at the bedside and small administration volume, the use of 4F-PCC over plasma is rising - particularly with new clinical trial evidence suggesting 4F-PCC has efficacy and safety advantages. This is reinforced by mechanistic evidence supporting the role of 4F-PCC in normalizing or improving thrombin generation, an important aspect of secondary hemostasis often impacted in cardiac surgery. Four randomized controlled trials contribute to the human evidence base for the use of 4F-PCC in cardiac surgery. FARES-II, the largest study to date, demonstrated that 4F-PCC has improved hemostatic efficacy and a superior safety profile compared with plasma. Three additional studies are underway to confirm these findings. SUMMARY: The use of 4F-PCC for the treatment of coagulopathic bleeding in cardiac surgery is supported by high-quality clinical evidence. Several unanswered questions remain regarding sex- and race-specific efficacy, the mechanism through which 4F-PCC may reduce serious adverse events, and its use in procedures that were under-represented in existing clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".