SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Efficacy and safety of prothrombin complex concentrate versus fresh frozen plasma in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative bleeding is a common and potentially life-threatening complication following cardiac surgery, often exacerbated by multifactorial coagulopathy from cardiopulmonary bypass, hypothermia, and platelet dysfunction. While fresh frozen plasma (FFP) has traditionally been used for coagulation correction, it has significant limitations, including large volume requirements, slow onset, and increased risk of transfusion-related complications. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) has emerged as a potential alternative, offering rapid coagulation correction with reduced volume load and no ABO compatibility requirements. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of PCC versus FFP in managing coagulopathic bleeding in adult cardiac surgery patients.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched using MeSH terms and keywords related to "Cardiothoracic Surgery", "Prothrombin Complex Concentrate", and "Fresh Frozen Plasma", from inception to Jan 2026. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials comparing PCC and FFP in patients aged > 18 years undergoing cardiac surgery complicated by bleeding or coagulopathy were included. Primary outcomes were RBC transfusion requirement, chest tube drainage, and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included surgical re-exploration for bleeding, stroke, duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU stays, and acute kidney injury. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4, applying risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals. The meta-analysis protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under protocol number CRD420251088737.
resultsThis meta-analysis included ten studies with 2,643 patients. PCC use moderately reduced RBC transfusion in the first 24 h (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.76-0.93; p = 0.05; I
conclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrates that PCC is superior to FFP in reducing RBC transfusion requirements, 12-24-h chest tube drainage, and hospital length of stay in adult cardiac surgery patients, while maintaining a comparable safety profile. Further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are warranted to strengthen the evidence base and inform future guidelines.
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.