Cargando…
INR reduction after prothrombin complex concentrate (Co-fact(©)) administration: comparison of INR outcomes in different patient categories at the emergency department
BACKGROUND: Co-fact(©), prothrombin complex concentrate, is used for restoring the international normalized ratio (INR) in patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKA) presenting with acute bleeding. In this prospective cohort study, we evaluated whether adequate INR values were reached in ED patients us...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23663356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1865-1380-6-14 |
_version_ | 1782269938148311040 |
---|---|
author | Roodheuvel, Floris Ligtenberg, Jack JM ter Maaten, Jan C |
author_facet | Roodheuvel, Floris Ligtenberg, Jack JM ter Maaten, Jan C |
author_sort | Roodheuvel, Floris |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Co-fact(©), prothrombin complex concentrate, is used for restoring the international normalized ratio (INR) in patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKA) presenting with acute bleeding. In this prospective cohort study, we evaluated whether adequate INR values were reached in ED patients using the Sanquin (Federation of Dutch Thrombosis Services) treatment protocol. METHODS: We evaluated this protocol for two target INR groups: group 1, target INR ≤ 1.5 (for life-threatening bleeding/immediate intervention); group 2, target INR 1.6-2.1 (in cases of a minor urgent surgery or serious overdosing of anticoagulant). We specifically wanted to identify both under- and over-treated patients. Reversing VKA anticoagulation therapy to unnecessarily low INR values may involve thrombotic risks. Apart from this risk, the patient is also administered an excess amount of the drug. This means unnecessary costs and may present problems with restoring an anticoagulated state at a later time. RESULTS: In our cohort, the Sanquin dosing protocol was followed for 45/60 patients. It appeared that out of the 41 patients in group 1 (target INR ≤ 1.5), 35 (85%) achieved the goal INR. This occurred more often than for the 19 patients in group 2 (target INR 1.6–2.1), where only 6 (32%) achieved the goal INR. Using the protocol resulted in a positive trend toward better INR reversal in group 1. In group 2, no relation between using the protocol and achieving the desired INR value was detected. Physicians ignoring the proposed dose of Co-fact(©) prescribed significantly less Co-fact(©) (even when correcting for patient weight). It appeared that patients in group 1 had a significantly lower baseline INR than patients in group 2. Group 2 patients, on the other hand, had a baseline INR > 7.5 in 53% of the cases. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, for most patients in INR group 2 treated with Co-fact(©), the achieved INR value was outside the desired range of 1.6-2.1. The supra-therapeutic range of baseline INR in group 2 may have contributed to the different kind of bleeding witnessed in this patient group. Our results support the idea that treatment of patients on vitamin K antagonists with Co-fact(©) could benefit from a slightly different approach, taking into account the INR value to which the patient needs to be reversed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3655866 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Springer |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-36558662013-05-17 INR reduction after prothrombin complex concentrate (Co-fact(©)) administration: comparison of INR outcomes in different patient categories at the emergency department Roodheuvel, Floris Ligtenberg, Jack JM ter Maaten, Jan C Int J Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Co-fact(©), prothrombin complex concentrate, is used for restoring the international normalized ratio (INR) in patients on vitamin K antagonists (VKA) presenting with acute bleeding. In this prospective cohort study, we evaluated whether adequate INR values were reached in ED patients using the Sanquin (Federation of Dutch Thrombosis Services) treatment protocol. METHODS: We evaluated this protocol for two target INR groups: group 1, target INR ≤ 1.5 (for life-threatening bleeding/immediate intervention); group 2, target INR 1.6-2.1 (in cases of a minor urgent surgery or serious overdosing of anticoagulant). We specifically wanted to identify both under- and over-treated patients. Reversing VKA anticoagulation therapy to unnecessarily low INR values may involve thrombotic risks. Apart from this risk, the patient is also administered an excess amount of the drug. This means unnecessary costs and may present problems with restoring an anticoagulated state at a later time. RESULTS: In our cohort, the Sanquin dosing protocol was followed for 45/60 patients. It appeared that out of the 41 patients in group 1 (target INR ≤ 1.5), 35 (85%) achieved the goal INR. This occurred more often than for the 19 patients in group 2 (target INR 1.6–2.1), where only 6 (32%) achieved the goal INR. Using the protocol resulted in a positive trend toward better INR reversal in group 1. In group 2, no relation between using the protocol and achieving the desired INR value was detected. Physicians ignoring the proposed dose of Co-fact(©) prescribed significantly less Co-fact(©) (even when correcting for patient weight). It appeared that patients in group 1 had a significantly lower baseline INR than patients in group 2. Group 2 patients, on the other hand, had a baseline INR > 7.5 in 53% of the cases. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, for most patients in INR group 2 treated with Co-fact(©), the achieved INR value was outside the desired range of 1.6-2.1. The supra-therapeutic range of baseline INR in group 2 may have contributed to the different kind of bleeding witnessed in this patient group. Our results support the idea that treatment of patients on vitamin K antagonists with Co-fact(©) could benefit from a slightly different approach, taking into account the INR value to which the patient needs to be reversed. Springer 2013-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3655866/ /pubmed/23663356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1865-1380-6-14 Text en Copyright ©2013 Roodheuvel et al.; licensee Springer. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Roodheuvel, Floris Ligtenberg, Jack JM ter Maaten, Jan C INR reduction after prothrombin complex concentrate (Co-fact(©)) administration: comparison of INR outcomes in different patient categories at the emergency department |
title | INR reduction after prothrombin complex concentrate (Co-fact(©)) administration: comparison of INR outcomes in different patient categories at the emergency department |
title_full | INR reduction after prothrombin complex concentrate (Co-fact(©)) administration: comparison of INR outcomes in different patient categories at the emergency department |
title_fullStr | INR reduction after prothrombin complex concentrate (Co-fact(©)) administration: comparison of INR outcomes in different patient categories at the emergency department |
title_full_unstemmed | INR reduction after prothrombin complex concentrate (Co-fact(©)) administration: comparison of INR outcomes in different patient categories at the emergency department |
title_short | INR reduction after prothrombin complex concentrate (Co-fact(©)) administration: comparison of INR outcomes in different patient categories at the emergency department |
title_sort | inr reduction after prothrombin complex concentrate (co-fact(©)) administration: comparison of inr outcomes in different patient categories at the emergency department |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3655866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23663356 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1865-1380-6-14 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT roodheuvelfloris inrreductionafterprothrombincomplexconcentratecofactadministrationcomparisonofinroutcomesindifferentpatientcategoriesattheemergencydepartment AT ligtenbergjackjm inrreductionafterprothrombincomplexconcentratecofactadministrationcomparisonofinroutcomesindifferentpatientcategoriesattheemergencydepartment AT termaatenjanc inrreductionafterprothrombincomplexconcentratecofactadministrationcomparisonofinroutcomesindifferentpatientcategoriesattheemergencydepartment |