Use of Prothrombin Complex Concentrates and Fibrinogen Concentrates in the Perioperative Setting: A Systematic Review

Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA. Electronic address: .
Transfusion medicine reviews (Impact Factor: 2.92). 02/2013; 27(2). DOI: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2013.01.002
Source: PubMed


The use of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) and fibrinogen concentrates (FIBCs) to achieve hemostasis in the perioperative setting as alternatives to allogeneic blood products remains controversial. To examine the efficacy and safety of PCCs and FIBCs, we conducted a systematic review-in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement-to compare the use of these transfusion alternatives in bleeding surgical patients. We performed a literature search of English articles published between July 1997 and July 2012 in MEDLINE via PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Five randomized trials and 15 nonrandomized studies with a comparator group were included in the final review. Studies were sorted into 1 of the following 3 clinical settings: cardiac surgery, non-cardiac surgery, and reversal of warfarin anticoagulation. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. With the exception of 2 randomized controlled trials, the existing body of literature on the use of PCCs and FIBCs in the perioperative setting was assessed to have a high degree of methodological bias. Overall, prospective studies in the cardiac surgery grouping suggested that patients receiving FIBC and/or PCCs required less allogeneic blood transfusion and had less chest tube drainage. In studies of warfarin reversal, PCCs more rapidly corrected the International Normalized Ratio compared to plasma; however, in the setting of intracranial hemorrhage, functional outcomes were poor regardless of the reversal strategy. With regards to safety outcomes, reporting was not uniform and raises concerns of underreporting. Adequately powered, methodologically sound trials would be required for more definitive conclusions to be drawn about the efficacy of PCCs and FIBC over conventional blood components for the treatment of perioperative coagulopathy in bleeding patients.

Download full-text


Available from: Minh-Ha Tran, Jul 04, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The value of thrombelastography (TEG) and thromboelastometry (ROTEM) to improve perioperative hemostasis is under debate. We aimed to assess the effects of TEG- or ROTEM-guided therapy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery on the use of allogeneic blood products. We analyzed 12 trials including 6835 patients, 749 of them included in 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We collected data on the amount of transfused allogeneic blood products and on the proportion of patients who received allogeneic blood products or coagulation factor concentrates. Including all trials, the odds ratios (ORs) for transfusion of red blood cell (RBC) concentrates, fresh-frozen plasma (FFP), and platelets were 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.69; P<.001), 0.28 (95% CI, 0.24-0.33; P<.001), and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.49-0.62; P<.001), respectively. However, more than 50% of the patients in this analysis were derived from one retrospective study. Including RCTs only, the ORs for transfusion of RBC, FFP, and platelets were 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38-0.77; P<.001), 0.36 (95% CI, 0.25-0.53; P<.001), and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81; P=.002), respectively. The use of coagulation factor concentrates was reported in 6 studies, 2 of them were RCTs. The ORs for the infusion of fibrinogen and prothrombin complex concentrate were 1.56 (95% CI, 1.29-1.87; P<.001) and 1.74 (95% CI, 1.40-2.18; P<.001), respectively. However, frequencies and amounts were similar in the intervention and control group in the 2 RCTs. It is presumed that TEG- or ROTEM-guided hemostatic management reduces the proportion of patients undergoing cardiac surgery transfused with RBC, FFP, and platelets. This presumption is strongly supported by similar ORs found in the analysis including RCTs only. Patient blood management based on the transfusion triggers by TEG or ROTEM appears to be more restrictive than the one based on conventional laboratory testing. However, evidence for improved clinical outcome is limited at this time.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2013 · Transfusion medicine reviews
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of erythropoietin (EPO) and intravenous (IV) iron as bloodless therapeutic modalities is being explored in the current era of restrictive transfusion strategies and perioperative blood management. It is unclear, however, whether the evidence in the literature supports their safety and efficacy in reducing perioperative red cell transfusions. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate their use in a variety of perioperative settings. We performed a literature search of English articles published between July 1997 and July 2012 in MEDLINE via PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Only studies with a comparator group were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 nonrandomized studies were included in the final review. Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, 8 RCTs were assessed to be at low risk for methodological bias. Of these, however, only 4 RCTs were adequately powered to detect a reduction in transfusion rates. Patients with preoperative iron deficiency anemia may have an earlier and more robust hemoglobin recovery with preoperative IV iron therapy than with oral iron supplementation. A short preoperative regimen of EPO, or a single dose of EPO plus IV iron in the preoperative or intraoperative period, may significantly reduce transfusion rates (number needed to treat to avoid any transfusion ranged from 3 to 6). With regard to the safety of erythropoietin-stimulating agent therapy, IV iron appears to be as well tolerated as oral iron; however, the incidence of severe anaphylactic-type reactions attributable to IV iron is difficult to estimate in prospective trials because of its relatively infrequent occurrence. Furthermore, EPO may increase the risk of thromboembolism in spinal surgery patients who receive mechanical antithrombotic prophylaxis in the perioperative period so pharmacological thromboprophylaxis is advised. Future low risk of bias, adequately powered prospective efficacy, and safety trials in various surgical settings that traditionally require red cell transfusions would be required to make evidenced-based conclusions about the clinical significance of erythropoietin-stimulating agent as a transfusion avoidance strategy in perioperative blood management.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2013 · Transfusion medicine reviews

  • No preview · Article · Nov 2013 · Transfusion medicine reviews
Show more