4.3 Article

Efficacy and safety of a prothrombin complex concentrate with two virus-inactivation steps in patients with severe liver damage

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00042737-200301000-00004

关键词

prothrombin complex concentrate; severe liver damage; surgery; bleeding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous infusions of an improved prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) formulation. Patients and methods Twenty-two adults with haemostatic defects due to severe liver disease (Quick's test < 50%), which required rapid haemostasis because of bleeding or before urgent surgery or invasive intervention. Laboratory follow-up, including the response and in-vivo recovery of the substituted coagulation factors II, VII, IX and X and protein C took place before, then 10 min, 30 min and 60 min after PCC substitution. Clinical efficacy (avoidance or cessation of bleeding) was assessed using a scale ranging from 'very good' to 'none'. Results Patients received a median PCC dose of 25.7 IU/kg. The response of factor IX and protein C was 1.2-1.4 (IU/dl)/(IU/kg), the in-vivo recovery was 49.7-57.4%, and the Quick's test increased from 39% to a maximum of 65%. Levels of activation markers of the coagulation system factor Vila, prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 and thrombin antithrombin complex (TAT) increased, but without evidence of any thromboembolic events. Clinical efficacy was judged as 'very good' in 76% of patients after the first (n = 21) treatment. There were no changes in serological status regarding transmission of HIV, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus. No PCC-related adverse reactions occurred. Conclusions The infusion of pasteurized, nanometrefiltered PCC is an effective, well-tolerated method of correcting prothrombin complex deficiency in patients with severe liver disease with haemorrhage, or before an urgent surgical or invasive diagnostic intervention. (C) 2003 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据