SynthesisClinical and experimental emergency medicine2025
Comparison of 4-factor fixed-dose versus 4-factor weight-based-dose prothrombin complex concentrate for emergent warfarin reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy, safety, time to international normalized ratio (INR) reversal, and total volume of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4-PCC) administered using fixed-dose versus weight-based dosing strategies in patients requiring urgent warfarin reversal, with specific focus on clinical outcomes of hemostatic efficacy, thromboembolic events, and mortality rates.
methodsA comprehensive systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception through October 2023. We searched for randomized clinical trials or observational studies that compared efficacy or safety outcomes of fixed versus variable 4-PCC dose in adult patients.
resultsIn the 14 included studies, the overall use of fixed-dose 4-PCC was associated with a lower likelihood of reaching the INR goal (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.89) compared to the variable-dose group. In addition, a significantly larger proportion of patients (169 of 651, 26%) required an additional dose of 4-PCC. The rates of mortality (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.03) and thromboembolic events (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.65-2.45) were similar between the two treatment groups.
conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis showed that variable dosing of 4-PCC more successfully achieves the target INR for warfarin reversal compared to fixed dosing. However, the dosing strategies have similar mortality and thromboembolic rates. While fixed dosing offers a simpler approach, it may require additional administration. Future studies should focus on optimizing dosing strategies to balance efficacy, safety, and practicality in various clinical scenarios.
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.