4.3 Article

Retrospective Comparison of Andexanet Alfa and 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex for Reversal of Factor Xa-Inhibitor Related Bleeding

Journal

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/10760296211039020

Keywords

coagulation factor Xa (recombinant); inactivated-zhzo; andexanet alfa; factor Xa inhibitors; direct-acting oral anticoagulants; hemorrhage; rivaroxaban; apixaban; reversal

Funding

  1. NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA [UL1 TR002535]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study compared andexanet alfa and 4-factor prothrombin complex (4F-PCC) for reversal of factor Xa (FXa)-inhibitor bleeding. The results showed that both treatments achieved hemostasis in a majority of patients with a similar rate of thromboembolic events and mortality. Prospective studies are needed to further elucidate the comparative risks and benefits of the two agents.
The aim of this retrospective study was to compare andexanet alfa and 4-factor prothrombin complex (4F-PCC) for reversal of factor Xa (FXa)-inhibitor bleeding. Patients that received andexanet alfa for reversal were included. An equivalent number of patients administered 4F-PCC for FXa-inhibitor bleeding were randomly selected as historical controls. The primary outcome was effective hemostasis achievement within 12 h, defined using ANNEXA-4 criteria. Thromboembolic events and mortality within 30 days were also evaluated. A total of 32 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were not statistically different between andexanet alfa (n = 16) and 4F-PCC (n = 16). Intracranial bleeding was the primary reversal indication in 43.8% versus 62.5% of patients, respectively. Effective hemostasis was reached in 75.0% of andexanet alfa patients compared to 62.5% of 4F-PCC patients (P = .70). Thromboembolic events occurred in 4 (25.0%) patients and 3 (18.8%) patients, respectively (P = .99). Mortality incidence was 12.5% and 31.3%, respectively (P = .39). Andexanet alfa and 4F-PCC attained hemostasis in a majority of patients. A high, but a similar rate of thromboembolic events was seen with both treatments. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate comparative risks and benefits of the 2 agents.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available