Skip to main content
. 2016 Dec 2;2016(1):605–611. doi: 10.1182/asheducation-2016.1.605

Table 1.

Characteristics and major outcomes of randomized controlled trials on use of 4-factor PCC vs FFP

Demeyere et al25 Sarode et al23 Goldstein et al24
Patients, n 40 216 181
Clinical setting Cardiopulmonary bypass Major bleeding Urgent surgical/invasive procedure
Intervention Cofact vs FFP Kcentra vs FFP Kcentra vs FFP
Primary end point, n (%) Patients reaching INR ≤1.5 24-h hemostatic efficacy Effective hemostasis
7 (44) vs 0; P = .007 71 (72) vs 68 (65)* 78 (90) vs 61 (75)
Mortality (d 45) Data not provided 10 (9.7) vs 5 (4.6) 3 (3) vs 8 (9)
Thrombotic events, n (%) Data not provided 8 (7.8) vs 7 (6.4) 6 (7) vs 7 (8)
Fluid overload, n (%) Data not provided 0 vs 7 (6.4) 3 (3) vs 11 (13)
*

Primary end point was 4-factor PCC non-inferior to plasma: P value for non-inferiority = .0045.

P = .0142 for superiority of 4-factor PCC to plasma.