Is there a difference in efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness between 3-factor and 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates among trauma patients on oral anticoagulants?
Is there a difference in efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness between 3-factor and 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates among trauma patients on oral anticoagulants?
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (3F-PCC) vs 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate PCC (4F-PCC) in trauma patients requiring reversal of oral anticoagulants.
Materials and methods: All consecutive trauma patients with coagulopathy (international normalized ratio [INR] ≥1.5) secondary to oral anticoagulants who received either 3F-PCC or 4F-PCC from 2010 to 2014 at 2 trauma centers were reviewed. Efficacy was determined by assessing the first INR post–PCC administration, and successful reversal was defined as INR less than 1.5. Safety was assessed by reviewing thromboembolic events, and cost-effectiveness was calculated using total treatment costs (drug acquisition plus transfusion costs) per successful reversal.
Results: Forty-six patients received 3F-PCC, and 18 received 4F-PCC. Baseline INR was similar for 3F-PCC and 4F-PCC patients (3.1 ± 2.3 vs 3.4 ± 3.7, P = .520). The initial PCC dose was 29 ± 9 U/kg for 3F-PCC and 26 ± 6 U/kg for 4F-PCC (P = .102). The follow-up INR was 1.6 ± 0.6 for 3F-PCC and 1.3 ± 0.2 for 4F-PCC (P = .001). Successful reversal rates in patients were 83% for 4F-PCC and 50% for 3F-PCC (P = .022). Thromboembolic events were observed in 15% of patients with 3F-PCC vs 0% with 4F-PCC (P = .177). Cost-effectiveness favored 4F-PCC ($5382 vs $3797).
Conclusions: Three-factor PCC and 4F-PCC were both safe in correcting INR, but 4F-PCC was more effective, leading to better cost-effectiveness. Replacing 3F-PCC with 4F-PCC for urgent coagulopathy reversal may benefit patients and institutions.
Read abstract on library site Access full article