↓ Skip to main content

Fixed Versus Variable Dosing of Prothrombin Complex Concentrate in Vitamin K Antagonist-Related Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Neurocritical Care, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Fixed Versus Variable Dosing of Prothrombin Complex Concentrate in Vitamin K Antagonist-Related Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Analysis
Published in
Neurocritical Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12028-016-0248-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rahat Amadkhan Abdoellakhan, Ishita Parveen Miah, Nakisa Khorsand, Karina Meijer, Korné Jellema

Abstract

Millions of patients receive vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy worldwide. Annually 0.2-1 % of all VKA users develops an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) is administered to restore the INR ≤ 1.5 in an attempt to limit hematoma growth. In order to facilitate PCC dosing, our hospital recently changed from a variable dose based on bodyweight, baseline- and target-INR, to a fixed 1000 IU fIX PCC dosing protocol for ICH. In a before and after design, we compared successful achievement of an INR ≤ 1.5 with a fixed dosing strategy versus the variable dosing strategy of PCC in patients presenting with intracranial bleeding complications of VKA. Data of the two cohorts of patients were retrospectively collected from medical records. A median dosage of 1750 IU was given per patient in the variable dose group (n = 25) versus 1000 IU in the fixed dose group (n = 28). In the intention-to-treat analysis, 96 % achieved an INR ≤ 1.5 after an initial dose in the variable dose cohort compared to 68 % in the fixed dose cohort (p = 0.01). An additional dose was given in 2 (8 %) versus 9 (32 %) patients, respectively (p = 0.04). The median door-to-PCC-order time was 42 versus 32 min (p = 0.37) and the door-to-needle time was 81, respectively 60 min (p = 0.42). The fixed dose protocol necessitates additional PCC infusions more frequently to achieve a target INR ≤ 1.5. Door-to-order and door-to-needle time were shorter but, in this small cohort, not significantly so. The effect on clinical outcome remains unknown.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,072,609
of 24,383,935 outputs
Outputs from Neurocritical Care
#383
of 1,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,394
of 305,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurocritical Care
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,383,935 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.