ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (3F-PCC) may provide a valuable treatment option for coagulopathy in cardiac surgery patients. However, it may expose patients to increased risk of thromboembolic events. Accordingly, we compared the incidence of thromboembolic events between patients exposed to 3F-PCC and those receiving conventional therapy. METHODS: Demographic, operative and postoperative data was obtained in a cohort of consecutive patients exposed to 3F-PCC and a contemporaneous control population. Propensity-score matching was performed for risk adjustment. Unadjusted and adjusted patient demographics and incidence of thromboembolism were compared. RESULTS: Patients receiving 3F-PCC (PCC) were younger (mean age PCC: 64±14.2 vs. No PCC: 67.6±11.6, p=0.022), and less likely to have diabetes or previous myocardial infarction. PCC patients experienced more prolonged aortic cross clamp times (mean time in minutes PCC: 119.9±58.8 vs. No PCC: 92.3±54), more complex cardiac surgeries and were more likely to have received more fresh frozen plasma (FFP), cryoprecipitate and red blood cells. Despite this, both unadjusted and adjusted 30-day mortality and readmission rates were similar between groups. There were 9 (9.2%) and 34 (6.8%) (p=0.40) thromboembolic events in the unadjusted PCC and control groups respectively. Adjusted risk for thromboembolic event rates was also comparable (Odds ratio: 1.512, 95% Confidence Interval 0.401-5.7, p=0.541). CONCLUSIONS: 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate was administered to patients at greater risk of complications including bleeding. Our initial experience suggests that the use of PCC does not appear to increase thromboembolic risks compared to conventional treatment.
Subject(s)
Blood Coagulation Factors/therapeutic use , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/drug therapy , Risk Assessment/methods , Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Aged , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate/trends , Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Thromboembolism/etiology , Treatment Outcome , Victoria/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is limited data from Australia and New Zealand comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR). METHODS: Between 2009 and 2015, 64 patients underwent TAVI and 669 underwent sAVR at a single centre. Patients' peri-operative details were analysed and compared between groups. Propensity-score matching was performed for risk adjustment. RESULTS: Patients receiving TAVI were older (mean age in years TAVI: 83.9±4.6 vs. sAVR: 71±9.9, P<0.001), and were more likely to be female (TAVI: 67%, 43/64, vs. sAVR: 32%, 217/669, P <0.001). Unadjusted 30-day mortality was comparable between groups (2/64, 3% vs. 22/669, 3%, P >0.99). The matched analysis revealed comparable 30-day mortality (TAVI: 2/44, 5% vs. sAVR: 2/44, 5%, P > 0.99). New atrial arrhythmia occurred more frequently within the sAVR cohort (TAVI: 1/44, 2% vs. sAVR 18/44, 41%, P <0.001). Complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker was more frequent amongst the TAVI cohort (TAVI: 10/44, 23% vs. sAVR 2/44, 5%, P=0.039). At two years, survival was comparable between groups (TAVI: 74±1.7 vs. sAVR: 80±0.1%, P=0.65). CONCLUSION: This single centre experience suggests that TAVI is a valuable treatment option for high-risk surgical patients with comparable survival.
