Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) vs. non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in left ventricular assist device recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors

Chavada Piyabun-Yanon, Nattawut Leelakanok, Bundarika Suwanawiboon, Yingyong Chinthammitr, Theera Ruchutrakool, Porntera Sethalao, Tarinee Rungjirajittranon

Published in

Intensive & critical care nursing. Volume 97. Pages 104533. Aug 29, 2026. Epub Aug 29, 2026.

Abstract

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) prolong survival in end-stage heart failure, and warfarin thromboprophylaxis is recommended to prevent device thrombosis and thromboembolic complications. When bleeding occurs or emergency surgery is required, rapid anticoagulation reversal is critical. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) provides rapid reversal; however, its risk-benefit profile in LVAD recipients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PCC with non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients.
MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched through June 2025 for studies of PCC versus non-PCC strategies for warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Random-effects models were used to pool arm-level estimates and to pool head-to-head comparisons using mean differences or risk ratios (RRs).
Eighteen studies involving 779 patients were included. Arm-level pooled estimates for PCC versus non-PCC comparators were 24.0% versus 15.8% for mortality, 16.5% versus 12.1% for thrombotic events, and 3.1 versus 5.7 for FFP units. Arm-level time to INR correction was longer with PCC overall (16.5 versus 13.6 h), driven by one elective cohort, but faster within the ICH subgroup (6.0 versus 13.7 h). In head-to-head comparisons, PCC achieved faster INR correction than non-PCC comparators (mean difference - 7.6 h; p = 0.001) and required fewer FFP units (-2.6 units; p = 0.019), with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14; p = 0.490) or thrombotic events (RR 1.43; p = 0.176).
In head-to-head studies, PCC was associated with faster INR correction and lower FFP requirements than non-PCC strategies, whereas mortality and thrombotic events did not differ significantly. Given the observational evidence, wide confidence intervals, and heterogeneity, equivalent safety cannot be established, and prospective studies are needed to define the relative safety and effectiveness of the two approaches.
PCC-based strategies may be considered for urgent warfarin reversal in LVAD recipients, particularly when rapid INR reduction or avoidance of large-volume plasma transfusion is clinically important. Treatment decisions should account for the indication, bleeding severity, and underlying thrombotic risk.
CRD42024573925.

PMID:
42667788
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 30 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.