↓ Skip to main content

Prothrombin complex concentrate for reversal of vitamin K antagonist treatment in bleeding and non-bleeding patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prothrombin complex concentrate for reversal of vitamin K antagonist treatment in bleeding and non-bleeding patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010555.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathias Johansen, Anne Wikkelsø, Jens Lunde, Jørn Wetterslev, Arash Afshari

Abstract

Treatment with vitamin K antagonists is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Reversal therapy with prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) is used increasingly and is recommended in the treatment of patients with bleeding complications undertaking surgical interventions, as well as patients at high risk of bleeding. Evidence is lacking regarding indication, dosing, efficacy and safety. We assessed the benefits and harms of PCC compared with fresh frozen plasma in the acute medical and surgical setting involving vitamin K antagonist-treated bleeding and non-bleeding patients. We investigated various outcomes and predefined subgroups and performed sensitivity analysis. We examined risks of bias and applied trial sequential analyses (TSA) to examine the level of evidence, and we prepared a 'Risk of bias' table to test the quality of the evidence. We searched the following databases from inception to 1 May 2013: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid SP); EMBASE (Ovid SP); International Web of Science; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (via BIREME); the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database; advanced Google and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We applied a systematic and sensitive search strategy to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and imposed no language or date restrictions. We adapted our MEDLINE search strategy for searches in all other databases. We reran the search in October 2014 and found one potential new study of interest. We added this study to a list of 'Studies awaiting classification', and we will incorporate this study into the formal review findings at the time of the review update. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted investigators and study authors to request relevant data. Three review authors independently abstracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measures were 'overall mortality longest follow-up' and 'overall 28-day mortality'. We performed subgroup analyses to assess the effects of PCC in adults in terms of various clinical and physiological outcomes. We presented pooled estimates of the effects of interventions on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and on continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias by assessing trial methodological components and risk of random error through TSA. We included four RCTs with a total of 453 participants and determined that none of these trials had overall low risk of bias. We found six ongoing trials from which we were unable to retrieve further data. Three trials provided data on mortality. Meta-analysis showed no statistical effect on overall mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.33; very low quality of evidence). We were unable to associate use of PCC with the number of complications probably related to the intervention (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09; very low quality of evidence). Lack of transfusion data and apparent differences in study design prevented review authors from finding a beneficial effect of PCC in reducing the volume of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfused to reverse the effect of vitamin K antagonist treatment. The number of new occurrences of transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) did not seem to be associated with the use of PCC (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; very low quality of evidence). Still, the included studies demonstrate the possibility of equally reversing vitamin K-induced coagulopathy using PCC without the need for transfusion of FFP. No effect on other predefined outcomes was observed. In the four included RCTs, use of prothrombin complex concentrate does not appear to reduce mortality or transfusion requirements but demonstrates the possibility of reversing vitamin K-induced coagulopathy without the need for transfusion of fresh frozen plasma. All included trials have high risk of bias and are underpowered to detect mortality, benefit or harm. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity is high, and definitions of clinically important outcomes such as adverse events are highly dissimilar between trials. Only weak observational evidence currently supports the use of PCC in vitamin K antagonist-treated bleeding and non-bleeding patients, and the current systematic review of RCTs does not support the routine use of PCC over FFP. Additional high-quality research is urgently needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 109 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 24%
Researcher 21 19%
Unspecified 20 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 50%
Unspecified 25 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 13 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 15 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,143,845
of 13,617,860 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,413
of 10,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,150
of 229,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,617,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 229,615 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 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 62% of its contemporaries.