ArticleThe Neurohospitalist2020
A Retrospective Comparison of 3-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Products for Warfarin Reversal.
Article in The Neurohospitalist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeCurrent guidelines suggest that 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate is a possible alternative to 4-factor products for the emergent reversal of bleeding secondary to warfarin. While multiple observational studies have evaluated various forms of 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate individually, no study has compared the efficacy of the 2 products. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of Bebulin™ and Profilnine™ for the emergent reversal of warfarin-associated major bleeding.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients receiving both Bebulin™ and Profilnine™ at an urban, academic medical center with comprehensive stroke center designation and a neurosurgical center of excellence. All patients were treated at a single center that utilized a fixed, weight-based dosing protocol. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients in each group achieving a goal international normalization ratio of 1.4 or less.
resultsThere was a significant difference in goal international normalization ratio achieved favoring Bebulin™ (85.5% vs 27.3%;
conclusionsWe found that patients treated with Bebulin™ experienced significantly higher rates of successful international normalization ratio reversal when compared to those who received Profilnine™. Further research is needed to determine the comparative efficacy between the 2 agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.