Intensive & critical care nursing · 2026
Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) vs. non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in left ventricular assist device recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Piyabun-Yanon Chavada, Leelakanok Nattawut, Suwanawiboon Bundarika, Chinthammitr Yingyong, Ruchutrakool Theera, Sethalao Porntera, Rungjirajittranon Tarinee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) prolong survival in end-stage heart failure, and warfarin thromboprophylaxis is recommended to prevent device thrombosis and thromboembolic complications. When bleeding occurs or emergency surgery is required, rapid anticoagulation reversal is critical. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) provides rapid reversal; however, its risk-benefit profile in LVAD recipients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PCC with non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched through June 2025 for studies of PCC versus non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects models were used to pool arm-level estimates and to pool head-to-head comparisons using mean differences or risk ratios (RRs).
RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 779 patients were included. Arm-level pooled estimates for PCC versus non-PCC comparators were 24.0% versus 15.8% for mortality, 16.5% versus 12.1% for thrombotic events, and 3.1 versus 5.7 for FFP units. Arm-level time to INR correction was longer with PCC overall (16.5 versus 13.6 h), driven by one elective cohort, but faster within the ICH subgroup (6.0 versus 13.7 h). In head-to-head comparisons, PCC achieved faster INR correction than non-PCC comparators (mean difference - 7.6 h; p = 0.001) and required fewer FFP units (-2.6 units; p = 0.019), with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14; p = 0.490) or thrombotic events (RR 1.43; p = 0.176).
CONCLUSIONS: In head-to-head studies, PCC was associated with faster INR correction and lower FFP requirements than non-PCC strategies, whereas mortality and thrombotic events did not differ significantly. Given the observational evidence, wide confidence intervals, and heterogeneity, equivalent safety cannot be established, and prospective studies are needed to define the relative safety and effectiveness of the two approaches.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: PCC-based strategies may be considered for urgent warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients, particularly when rapid INR reduction or avoidance of large-volume plasma transfusion is clinically important. Treatment decisions should account for the indication, bleeding severity, and underlying thrombotic risk.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42024573925.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched through June 2025 for studies of PCC versus non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects models were used to pool arm-level estimates and to pool head-to-head comparisons using mean differences or risk ratios (RRs).
RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 779 patients were included. Arm-level pooled estimates for PCC versus non-PCC comparators were 24.0% versus 15.8% for mortality, 16.5% versus 12.1% for thrombotic events, and 3.1 versus 5.7 for FFP units. Arm-level time to INR correction was longer with PCC overall (16.5 versus 13.6 h), driven by one elective cohort, but faster within the ICH subgroup (6.0 versus 13.7 h). In head-to-head comparisons, PCC achieved faster INR correction than non-PCC comparators (mean difference - 7.6 h; p = 0.001) and required fewer FFP units (-2.6 units; p = 0.019), with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14; p = 0.490) or thrombotic events (RR 1.43; p = 0.176).
CONCLUSIONS: In head-to-head studies, PCC was associated with faster INR correction and lower FFP requirements than non-PCC strategies, whereas mortality and thrombotic events did not differ significantly. Given the observational evidence, wide confidence intervals, and heterogeneity, equivalent safety cannot be established, and prospective studies are needed to define the relative safety and effectiveness of the two approaches.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: PCC-based strategies may be considered for urgent warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients, particularly when rapid INR reduction or avoidance of large-volume plasma transfusion is clinically important. Treatment decisions should account for the indication, bleeding severity, and underlying thrombotic risk.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42024573925.